Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of tedizolid versus linezolid in patients with skin and soft tissue infections in Japan – Results of a randomised, multicentre phase 3 study

Optic and peripheral neuropathy associated with short and prolonged administration of tedizolid: a review

INTRODUCTION

Tedizolid is a novel antibiotic of the class of oxazolidinones. This review evaluates the published literature on the optic and peripheral neuropathy associated with short and prolonged administration of tedizolid.

AREAS COVERED

A review of published data from 4 databases was conducted, regarding the development of optic and peripheral neuropathy in patients who received tedizolid for short or prolonged duration. A total of 1,212 records were screened; 33 were included in this review. No peripheral or optic neuropathy cases were reported in 6 randomized controlled trials that studied tedizolid use for a short course. In contrast, 2 cases with optic neuropathy (1 not supported by objective findings) in 87 patients of the prospective studies were identified. Additionally, in a total of 277 patients who participated in the 6 retrospective studies, 9 adverse events related to optic or peripheral neuropathy and 1 case with foot drop in 22 patients of the relevant cases reports were recorded.

EXPERT OPINION

The available data suggests that the safety profile of tedizolid is favorable, especially when given for a short time. However, more clinical studies are needed regarding its long-term use, given that the neurotoxicity induced by oxazolidinones may be time and dose-dependent.

Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid in Japanese Patients

Background/Objective: Tedizolid (TZD), an oxazolidinone, causes fewer adverse events than linezolid (LZD). However, studies on the long-term efficacy and safety of TZD, particularly in patients with hematological malignancies (HMs), remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of long-term TZD use in Japanese patients, including those with HM. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients aged 15 years and older who received TZD treatment at St. Luke's International Hospital between 2018 and 2023. Patient demographics, treatment duration, adverse events, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Results: Data from 35 patients and 40 treatment episodes were analyzed, including 13 episodes in patients with HM, of whom 65.0% were male, with a median age of 69.0 years (IQR: 24.5 years). The median treatment duration was 13.5 days (IQR: 46.8), with a maximum of 203 days. TZD was switched from other anti-MRSA agents in 82.5% of cases, including 42.5% from LZD. One patient discontinued TZD due to liver dysfunction, attributed to concomitant medication use. Clinical cure rates were significantly higher in the non-HM group compared to the HM group (88.9% vs. 38.5%). The 90-day mortality rate differed notably between the HM and non-HM groups (69.2% and 3.7%). Despite 100% microbiological eradication, infection-related mortality rates were 3.7% in the non-HM and 38.5% in the HM group. No reported cases of optic neuritis, Clostridioides difficile colitis, or major bleeding; Conclusions: TZD appears to be safe for long-term use, regardless of HM status, with no major complications observed in this cohort.

Introducing new antibiotics for multidrug-resistant bacteria: obstacles and the way forward

BACKGROUND

Following intense efforts to revive the dry antibiotic research and development pipeline, a few highly awaited antibiotics with activity against multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria were recently approved.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to highlight gaps in the evidence generated for new antibiotics by the time of their approval and to review the consequent limitations of treatment guidelines for priority MDR bacteria. We also report on the availability of the new antibiotics, reimbursement strategies allowing the use of these antibiotics in hospitals, and antibiotic stewardship efforts.

SOURCES

We searched PubMed for phase 3 randomized controlled trials, guidelines, and publications on access, usage, regulatory aspects and antimicrobial stewardship of antibiotics approved for use against MDR bacteria between 2013 and 2023. Other sources included governmental and professional documents regarding policies for reimbursement and use of the new antibiotics.

CONTENT

Several gaps in the evidence available regarding the new antibiotics are described related to the trials' target populations, comparators, management algorithm within the trial, non-inferiority hypotheses, and assessment of resistance development within the studies. We highlight the risk of current guidelines to increase the usage of new antibiotics and consequently accelerate resistance development. Updated mapping of antibiotic availability reveals critical inequality in access to the new antibiotics. Finally, strategies used nationally in Europe to provide access to the new antibiotics are not sufficiently balanced by antibiotic stewardship efforts to calibrate the judicious use of the new antibiotics.

IMPLICATIONS

Antibiotic resistance is an immediate threat. The present review highlights areas where more systematic and uniform strategies across countries and geographical regions are warranted to improve evidence, availability, and use of new broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Efficacy and Safety of Antibiotics in the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Infections: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Vancomycin is a first-line drug for the treatment of MRSA infection. However, overuse of vancomycin can cause bacteria to become resistant, forming resistant strains and making infections more difficult to treat. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different antibiotics in the treatment of MRSA infections and to compare them, mainly with vancomycin, to find better vancomycin alternatives.

METHODS

All studies were obtained from the PubMed and Embase databases from inception to 13 April 2023. The three comprehensive indicators of clinical cure success rate, clinical microbiological success rate, and adverse reactions were evaluated, and the clinical cure success rates of three disease types, complex skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs), complex skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs), and pneumonia, were analyzed in subgroups. All statistical analyses were performed using R and STATA 14.0 software for network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 38 trials with 6281 patients were included, and 13 drug treatments were evaluated. For MRSA infections, the results of network meta-analysis showed that the clinical success rates of linezolid, the combination of vancomycin and rifampin, and the combination of minocycline and rifampin were better than that of vancomycin (RR 1.71; 95%-CI 1.45-2.02), (RR 2.46; 95%-CI 1.10-5.49) (RR, 2.77; 95%-CI 1.06-7.21). The success rate of clinical microbiological treatment with vancomycin was inferior to that with telavancin (RR 0.74; 95%-CI 0.55-0.99). Linezolid had a higher rate of adverse reactions than teicoplanin (RR 5.35; 95%-CI 1.10-25.98). Subgroup analysis showed that vancomycin had a lower clinical success rate than linezolid in the treatment of MRSA-induced cSSSIs, cSSTIs, and pneumonia (RR 0.59; 95%-CI 0.44-0.80) (RR 0.55; 95%-CI 0.35-0.89) (RR 0.55; 95%-CI 0.32-0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and NMA provide a new comparison framework for the clinical treatment of MRSA infection. The NMA suggests that linezolid may be the antibiotic of choice for the treatment of MRSA infections, with the ability to improve clinical and microbiological success rates despite its disadvantage in terms of adverse effects. At the same time, the combination of minocycline and rifampicin may be the most effective drug to treat MRSA-induced cSSSIs, tedizolid may be the best drug to treat MRSA-induced cSSTIs, and the combination of vancomycin and rifampicin may be the most effective treatment for MRSA-induced pneumonia. More high-quality studies are still needed in the future to further identify alternatives to vancomycin.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42023416788.

Analytical Methodologies for the Estimation of Oxazolidinone Antibiotics as Key Members of anti-MRSA Arsenal: A Decade in Review

Gram-positive bacterial infections are among the most serious diseases related with high mortality rates and huge healthcare costs especially with the rise of antibiotic-resistant strains that limits treatment options. Thus, development of new antibiotics combating these multi-drug resistant bacteria is crucial. Oxazolidinone antibiotics are the only totally synthetic group of antibiotics that showed activity against multi-drug resistant Gram positive bacteria including MRSA because of their unique mechanism of action in targeting protein synthesis. This group include approved marketed members (tedizolid, linezolid and contezolid) or those under development (delpazlolid, radezolid and sutezolid). Due to the significant impact of this class, larger number of analytical methods were required to meet the needs of both clinical and industrial studies. Analyzing these drugs either alone or with other antimicrobial agents commonly used in ICU, in the presence of pharmaceutical or endogenous biological interferences, or in the presence of matrix impurities as metabolites and degradation products poses a big analytical challenge. This review highlights current analytical approaches published in the last decade (2012-2022) that dealt with the determination of these drugs in different matrices and discusses their advantages and disadvantages. Various techniques have been described for their determination including chromatographic, spectroscopic, capillary electrophoretic and electroanalytical methods. The review comprises six sections (one for each drug) with their related tables that depict critical figures of merit and some experimental conditions for the reviewed methods. Furthermore, future perspectives about the analytical methodologies that can be developed in the near future for determination of these drugs are suggested.

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

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

Bayesian prediction-based individualized dosing of anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus treatment: Recent advancements and prospects in therapeutic drug monitoring

As one of the efficient techniques for TDM, the population pharmacokinetic (popPK) model approach for dose individualization has been developed due to the rapidly growing innovative progress in computer technology and has recently been considered as a part of model-informed precision dosing (MIPD). Initial dose individualization and measurement followed by maximum a posteriori (MAP)-Bayesian prediction using a popPK model are the most classical and widely used approach among a class of MIPD strategies. MAP-Bayesian prediction offers the possibility of dose optimization based on measurement even before reaching a pharmacokinetically steady state, such as in an emergency, especially for infectious diseases requiring urgent antimicrobial treatment. As the pharmacokinetic processes in critically ill patients are affected and highly variable due to pathophysiological disturbances, the advantages offered by the popPK model approach make it highly recommended and required for effective and appropriate antimicrobial treatment. In this review, we focus on novel insights and beneficial aspects of the popPK model approach, especially in the treatment of infectious diseases with anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus agents represented by vancomycin, and discuss the recent advancements and prospects in TDM practice.

The Epidemiology of Antibiotic-Related Adverse Events in the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections: A Narrative Review of the Literature

The use of antibiotics for the treatment of diabetic foot infections (DFIs) over an extended period of time has been shown to be associated with adverse events (AEs), whereas interactions with concomitant patient medications must also be considered. The objective of this narrative review was to summarize the most frequent and most severe AEs reported in prospective trials and observational studies at the global level in DFI. Gastrointestinal intolerances were the most frequent AEs, from 5% to 22% among all therapies; this was more common when prolonged antibiotic administration was combined with oral beta-lactam or clindamycin or a higher dose of tetracyclines. The proportion of symptomatic colitis due to Clostridium difficile was variable depending on the antibiotic used (0.5% to 8%). Noteworthy serious AEs included hepatotoxicity due to beta-lactams (5% to 17%) or quinolones (3%); cytopenia's related to linezolid (5%) and beta-lactams (6%); nausea under rifampicin, and renal failure under cotrimoxazole. Skin rash was found to rarely occur and was commonly associated with the use of penicillins or cotrimoxazole. AEs from prolonged antibiotic use in patients with DFI are costly in terms of longer hospitalization or additional monitoring care and can trigger additional investigations. The best way to prevent AEs is to keep the duration of antibiotic treatment short and with the lowest dose clinically necessary.

New Antibiotics for Staphylococcus aureus Infection: An Update from the World Association of Infectious Diseases and Immunological Disorders (WAidid) and the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA)

Staphylococcus aureus is an extremely virulent pathogen that is capable of quickly evolving and developing antibiotic resistance. To overcome this problem, new antibiotics have been developed. Some of these have been licenced for use in clinical practice, mainly for the treatment of adults with acute skin and soft tissue infections, in addition to both community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and nosocomial pneumonia (hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia). In this paper, the main characteristics and clinical use of new licenced anti-staphylococcal drugs have been discussed. In vitro studies have demonstrated that some new anti-staphylococcal antibiotics have better antimicrobial activity and, at least in certain cases, more favourable pharmacokinetic properties and higher safety and tolerability than the presently available anti-staphylococcal drugs. This suggests that they may have a potential use in reducing the risk of failure of S. aureus therapy. However, an in-depth analysis of microbiological and clinical studies carried out with these new drugs seems to indicate that further studies need to be conducted before the problem of resistance of S. aureus to the antibiotics available today can be completely solved. Considering the overall available research, the drugs that are active against S. aureus appear to present a great therapeutic opportunity for overcoming resistance to traditional therapy. There are advantages in the pharmacokinetic characteristics of some of these drugs and they have the potential to reduce hospital stays and economic costs associated with their use.

Impact of antimicrobial stewardship with the Xpert MRSA/SA BC assay at a tertiary hospital in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Genetic testing is gaining increasing importance as a part of antimicrobial stewardship (AS). Rapid identification and determination of methicillin susceptibility using the Xpert MRSA/SA BC assay can improve the management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) and reduce inappropriate antibiotic use. However, few reports have described the effectiveness of this approach.

METHODS

The present study aimed to assess the influence of AS using the Xpert MRSA/SA BC assay. Cases were classified into the pre-intervention group (n = 98 patients), in which SAB was identified by traditional culture (November 2017 to November 2019), and the post-intervention group (n = 97 patients), in which the Xpert MRSA/SA BC assay was performed when necessary (December 2019 to December 2021).

RESULTS

Patient characteristics, prognosis, duration of antimicrobial use, and length of hospital stay were compared between the groups. The Xpert assay was performed in 66 patients in the post-intervention group (68.0%). The two groups showed no significant differences in severity and mortality. The rate of cases treated with anti-MRSA agents reduced following the intervention (65.3% vs. 40.4%, p = 0.008). The number of cases involving definitive therapy within 24 h was higher in the post-intervention group (9.2% vs. 24.7%, p = 0.007). The hospitalization rate at >60 days was lower in Xpert implementation cases among MRSA bacteremia cases (28.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, the Xpert MRSA/SA BC assay has potential as an AS tool, especially for early definitive treatment to SAB and reduction of long-term hospitalization in MRSA bacteremia cases.

Insufficient Representation of Patients With Obesity in Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Antimicrobials for Treatment of Skin and Skin Structure Infections: A Scoping Review

Persons with obesity (PwO) represent approximately 50% of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) in the United States (US). There are currently insufficient data in PwO for drugs used for ABSSSIs. We conducted a scoping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2000 and 2022 to describe how frequently body size measures were reported. Weight and/or body mass index (BMI) were recorded in approximately 50% of the 69 RCTs. The average weights or BMIs were lower than US averages for most RCTs reporting data. None evaluated the impact of body size on outcomes in the original publication. Only 30% of newly approved drugs mention PwO representation in the prescribing information. More representative recruitment of PwO into RCTs is needed to help clinicians evaluate efficacy in these patients. We suggest that the Food and Drug Administration require companies to submit plans to ensure adequate PwO inclusion and that authors of RCTs report subgroup results based on body size.

The Struggle to End a Millennia-Long Pandemic: Novel Candidate and Repurposed Drugs for the Treatment of Tuberculosis

This article provides an encompassing review of the current pipeline of putative and developed treatments for tuberculosis, including multidrug-resistant strains. The review has organized each compound according to its site of activity. To provide context, mention of drugs within current recommended treatment regimens is made, thereafter followed by discussion on recently developed and upcoming molecules at established and novel targets. The review is designed to provide a clinically applicable understanding of the compounds that are deemed most currently relevant, including those already under clinical study and those that have shown promising pre-clinical results. An extensive review of the efficacy and safety data for key contemporary drugs already incorporated into treatment regimens, such as bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid, is provided. The three levels of the bacterial cell wall (mycolic acid, arabinogalactan, and peptidoglycan layers) are highlighted and important compounds designed to target each layer are delineated. Amongst others, the highly optimistic and potent anti-mycobacterial activity of agents such as BTZ-043, PBTZ 169, and OPC-167832 are emphasized. The evolving spectrum of oxazolidinones, such as sutezolid, delpazolid, and TBI-223, all aiming to exceed the efficacy achieved with linezolid yet offer a safer alternative to the potential toxicity, are reviewed. New and exciting prospective agents with novel mechanisms of impact against TB, including 3-aminomethyl benzoxaboroles and telacebec, are underscored. We describe new diaryloquinolines in development, striving to build on the immense success of bedaquiline. Finally, we discuss some of these compounds that have shown encouraging additive or synergistic benefit when used in combination, providing some promise for the future in treating this ancient scourge.

Efficacy and safety of optional parenteral antimicrobial therapy for complicated skin and soft tissue infections: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) carry significant economic burden, as well as morbidity and mortality, especially when caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of optional antimicrobial therapy for the treatment of complicated SSTIs (cSSTIs).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline (Via Ovid SP), Embase (Via Ovid SP), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception to March 22, 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied the use of optional antimicrobial therapy for cSSTIs. Citations' screening, study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were independently performed by 2 authors. The primary outcomes were clinical and microbiological treatment success, and adverse events (AEs) were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 48 trials covering 24,381 patients assessing 20 types of antimicrobial treatment modalities were included. Overall, omadacycline was associated with the highest beneficial effect on clinical and microbiological treatment success and with the largest rank probability based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve values, avarofloxacin was closely followed. Both had, however, omadacycline was related to moderately safety profiles. Lefamulin ranked as the best option was associated with the lowest risk of severe AEs. Subgroup analysis showed similar results. The quality of primary outcomes was moderate to low.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of omadacycline was associated with higher rates of clinical and microbiological treatment success for the treatment of cSSTIs, with a relative low risk of AEs. Due to the limitations of the included RCTs, high-quality and well-designed RCTs are needed to further confirm the results.

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.

Target Therapeutic Ranges of Anti-MRSA Drugs, Linezolid, Tedizolid and Daptomycin, and the Necessity of TDM

The target therapeutic ranges of vancomycin, teicoplanin, and arbekacin have been determined, and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is performed in clinical practice. However, TDM is not obligatory for daptomycin, linezolid, or tedizolid. In this study, we examined whether TDM will be necessary for these 3 drugs in the future. There was no significant difference in therapeutic effects on acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection between linezolid and tedizolid by meta-analysis. Concerning the therapeutic effects on pneumonia, the rate of effectiveness after treatment with tedizolid was significantly lower than with linezolid. With respect to safety, the incidences of gastrointestinal adverse events and blood/lymphatic system disorders related to tedizolid were significantly lower than those related to linezolid. Linezolid exhibits potent therapeutic effects on pneumonia, but the appearance of adverse reactions is indicated as a problem. There was a dose-dependent decrease in the platelet count, and the target trough concentration (C_trough) was estimated to be 4-6 or 2-7 µg/mL in accordance with the patient's condition. The efficacy of linezolid may be obtained while minimizing the appearance of adverse reactions by performing TDM. The target therapeutic range of tedizolid cannot be achieved in immunocompromised or severe patients. Therefore, we concluded that TDM was unnecessary, considering step-down therapy with oral drugs, use in non-severe patients, and high-level safety. Concerning daptomycin, high-dose administration is necessary to achieve an area under the curve (AUC) of ≥666 as an index of efficacy. To secure its safety, C_trough (<20 µg/mL) monitoring is important. Therefore, TDM is necessary.

A validated UHPLC-MS/MS method for quantification of total and free tedizolid concentrations in human plasma

Tedizolid (TZD) is a novel oxazolidinone antibiotic. Although TZD efficacy correlates with area under the concentration-time curve/minimum inhibitory concentration, there is no report of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis using plasma free TZD concentrations. Several methods have been developed for measuring total TZD concentration, but not for free TZD concentration. We aimed to develop a high-throughput simultaneous quantification method for total and free TZD concentrations using ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS). The equilibrium dialysis method was used for separation of the free fraction. Pretreatment was conducted by solid-phase extraction using 96-well HLB µElution plate. Chromatographic separation of the analytes was conducted using a C18 column. MS/MS transitions were monitored in the positive ion mode. Full validation was performed in accordance with the bioanalytical method validation guidance prepared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The assay showed good linearity over wide ranges of 5-5000 (r² = 0.9964) and 1.5-1500 (r² = 0.9990) ng/mL for total and free TZD concentrations, respectively. Within-batch accuracy and precision as well as batch-to-batch accuracy and precision for total and free concentrations fulfilled the criteria of the FDA guidance. The recovery rates were higher than 92.3% and higher than 85.3% for total and free concentrations. Matrix effect showed no remarkable differences among three quality control levels for total and free concentrations. In vitro protein binding rates of TZD ranged from 71.6% to 76.9%, indicating no concentration-dependent difference within the calibration ranges. The total and free concentrations in five patients who received TZD were within the ranges of the calibration curves, demonstrating the feasibility of clinical application of the novel method. In conclusion, we have succeeded to develop for the first time a method for simultaneous quantification of total and free TZD concentrations.

Efficacy and safety of tedizolid for the treatment of ventilated gram-positive hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in Japanese patients: Results from a subgroup analysis of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study comparing tedizolid and linezolid

INTRODUCTION

The results from the phase 3 study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of tedizolid phosphate, an oxazolidinone drug, for the treatment of gram-positive ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (vHABP)/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) compared with linezolid (VITAL study), have been previously reported. We conducted a subgroup analysis to report the data obtained from Japanese patients enrolled in this study.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years with vHABP/VABP likely to be caused by gram-positive cocci were randomized 1:1 to tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily for 7 days or linezolid 600 mg twice daily for 10 days. In both treatment groups, patients with concurrent gram-positive bacteremia were treated for 14 days. Primary efficacy endpoints were day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM) and investigator-assessed clinical response at test-of-cure (TOC) in the intention-to-treat population. Safety outcomes included assessment of treatment-emergent adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifty-three Japanese patients were randomized at received study drug (tedizolid, n = 28; linezolid, n = 25). Demographics and characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups. Rates of day 28 ACM were 10.7% and 20.0% with tedizolid and linezolid, respectively (difference, 9.3%; 95% CI, -10.1 to 28.7). Rates of investigator-assessed clinical cure at TOC were 78.6% and 72.0% with tedizolid and linezolid, respectively (difference, 6.6%; 95% CI, -16.7 to 29.8). Tedizolid phosphate was generally well tolerated and no new safety concerns were observed in the Japanese subgroup.

CONCLUSION

The results from this subgroup analysis suggest generally favorable efficacy and safety of tedizolid in adult Japanese patients with vHABP/VABP. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02019420).

Correction of thrombocytopenia caused by linezolid with scheduled sequential tedizolid use in patients with vertebral osteomyelitis by antibiotic resistant Gram-positive organisms

INTRODUCTION

Because of thrombocytopenia, linezolid treatment tends to be stopped before the completion of therapy for complicated infections that require prolonged antimicrobial administration. In contrast, tedizolid shows a favorable hematologic profile. The primary end-point of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of switching treatment to tedizolid in patients who developed thrombocytopenia during linezolid therapy.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in patients with vertebral osteomyelitis (VO) caused by antibiotic-resistant Gram-positive bacteria. Treatment failure was defined as the reappearance of infection signs within 2 weeks after stopping tedizolid and discontinuation of tedizolid because of continued thrombocytopenia or other adverse effects.

RESULTS

Eight patients with native VO (n = 3) and postoperative VO (n = 5) were included in the study. The causative organisms were MRSA in all patients except one. Platelet counts decreased from 35.2 ± 11.5 × 10⁴/mm³ to 17.8 ± 6.2 × 10⁴/mm³ during linezolid therapy and improved without washout period in all patients after switching to tedizolid on days 5-7 (28.6 ± 4.9 × 10⁴/mm³, p = 0.002). Tedizolid therapy was completed and treatment failure was not observed in any patient. The duration of treatment was 20.0 ± 11.2 days for linezolid and 30.3 ± 9.5 days for tedizolid (total, 50.3 ± 10.7 days). One patient died because of underlying disease, and there was no recurrence in the remaining 7 patients (median follow-up 501 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching therapy to tedizolid improved thrombocytopenia that occurred during linezolid therapy, and it enabled the completion of therapy for VO patients.

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.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Vancomycin, Linezolid, Tedizolid, and Daptomycin in Treating Patients with Suspected or Proven Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Skin and soft structure infections (SSTIs) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pose serious health risks and cause significant cost burdens, and a conclusive recommendation about antibiotics has not yet been generated. Therefore, we performed this updated network meta-analysis to determine the preferred drug for the treatment of MRSA-caused SSTIs.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify any potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the comparative efficacy and safety of any two of vancomycin, linezolid, tedizolid, and daptomycin in MRSA-caused SSTIs. All statistical analyses were conducted with RevMan, ADDIS, and STATA software.

Results

Twenty eligible RCTs involving 7804 patients were included for the final analysis. Direct meta-analysis suggested that linezolid was superior to vancomycin in improving clinical (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–1.99; P = 0.02) and microbiological (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.24–2.86; P = 0.003) success, which were all confirmed by network meta-analyses. No statistical differences were identified regarding other comparisons. Meanwhile, there were no significant differences between any two antibiotics related to safety. Moreover, ranking probabilities indicated that linezolid had the highest probability of being ranked best in terms of clinical and microbiological success.

Conclusion

Based on the limited evidence, linezolid may be a preferred antibiotic for the treatment of MRSA-caused SSTIs because it showed superiority in clinical and microbiological success without difference regarding safety.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00456-0.

Exploring the possible targeting strategies of liposomes against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

Multi antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections are on the rise due to the overuse of antibiotics. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is one of the pathogens listed under the category of serious threats where vancomycin remains the mainstay treatment despite the availability of various antibacterial agents. Recently, decreased susceptibility to vancomycin from clinical isolates of MRSA has been reported and has drawn worldwide attention as it is often difficult to overcome and leads to increased medical costs, mortality, and longer hospital stays. Development of antibiotic delivery systems is often necessary to improve bioavailability and biodistribution, in order to reduce antibiotic resistance and increase the lifespan of antibiotics. Liposome entrapment has been used as a method to allow higher drug dosing apart from reducing toxicity associated with drugs. The surface of the liposomes can also be designed and enhanced with drug-release properties, active targeting, and stealth effects to prevent recognition by the mononuclear phagocyte system, thus enhancing its circulation time. The present review aimed to highlight the possible targeting strategies of liposomes against MRSA bacteremia systemically while investigating the magnitude of this effect on the minimum inhibitory concentration level.

Skin and sepsis: contribution of dermatology to a rapid diagnosis

In patients who develop sepsis, whether due to primary, secondary or metastatic lesions, the skin is frequently affected. However, there are unresolved aspects regarding the general clinical manifestations in the skin or the prognosis and/or therapeutic implications. The main challenge in the approach to sepsis is its early diagnosis and management. In this review, we address the sepsis-skin relationship and the potential impact of early dermatological intervention on the septic patient through ten basic questions. We found little evidence of the participation of the dermatologist in sepsis alert programs. There are early skin changes that may alert clinicians on a possible sepsis, such as skin mottling or variations in acral skin temperature. In addition, the skin is an accessible and highly cost-effective tissue for etiological studies of some forms of sepsis (e.g., meningococcal purpura) and its involvement defines the prognosis of certain patients (e.g., infective endocarditis).

[Pharmacological action and clinical effect of tedizolid phosphate (SIVEXTRO® Tablets 200 mg, for iv infusion 200 mg), a novel oxazolidinone-class antibacterial drug]

Tedizolid, a novel oxazolidinone antibacterial agent, is a protein synthesis inhibitor that acts on bacterial ribosomes to inhibit initiation of translation. Tedizolid phosphate, a prodrug of tedizolid, is rapidly converted to the active form of tedizolid by phosphatase after administration. Tedizolid has antimicrobial activity mainly against gram-positive pathogens, and generally shows 4-8 times stronger in vitro activity than linezolid, an oxazolidinone antibacterial agent. Tedizolid has antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) regardless of being methicillin-resistant or susceptible, with 90% minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC₉₀) ranging from 0.25-0.5 μg/mL. Although antimicrobial activity of tedizolid against linezolid-resistant S. aureus (LRSA) is generally reduced, tedizolid is still active to LRSA whose linezolid resistance is caused by cfr gene. Structure-activity relationship analysis suggests that the C-5 hydroxymethyl group, the C-ring pyridine, and the D-ring tetrazole group of tedizolid are associated with enhanced antimicrobial activity of tedizolid and its antimicrobial activity against linezolid-resistant bacteria by the cfr gene. Frequency of spontaneous resistance mutation to tedizolid is low, and about 16-fold lower than that to linezolid. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) parameter most related to the efficacy of tedizolid is the area under free drug concentration-time curve/minimum inhibitory concentration (fAUC/MIC), and fAUC/MIC value required for bacteriostasis under immunocompetent conditions was calculated to be three. Phase III studies of tedizolid phosphate were conducted in Japan and overseas countries and demonstrated its efficacy and safety in patients with skin and soft tissue infections caused by gram positive organisms including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA).

Blood culture reports by infectious disease physicians can improve prognosis of bacteremia, including weekend-onset cases

OBJECTIVES

Cases of positive blood cultures were previously reported by a microbiological technologist (MT) to an attending physician (AP), and the Antimicrobial Stewardship team provided medical assistance by grasping the situation at the morning meeting the next day. Since April 2018, MTs have reported positive blood cultures to an infectious disease physician (IDP), who proposes the management approach to the AP and provides weekend support. This study assessed the effectiveness of blood culture reports provided by IDPs to APs on outcomes of bacteremia, including weekend-onset cases.

METHODS

Patient characteristics and prognoses before (October 2017 to March 2018) and after intervention (April to September 2018) were compared.

RESULTS

The pre-intervention and post-intervention groups comprised 134 and 161 patients, respectively. Patients were more likely to be older (>65 years) in the post-intervention group (p < 0.05). There were no significant between-group differences in infection severity. The rate of de-escalation significantly increased from 38.1%-57.8% (p = 0.001). The rates of 28-day and in-hospital mortality reduced following the intervention (21.3% vs. 8.2% and 32.8% vs. 10.6%; p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively). In-hospital mortality for weekend-onset cases also reduced following the intervention (33.3% vs. 12.9%, p = 0.01). Sepsis was a poor prognostic factor (OR 8.070, 95% CI 3.320-19.600, p < 0.001) and intervention was a good prognostic factor (OR 0.311, 95% CI 0.142-0.680, p = 0.003) affecting 28-day mortality in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes to blood culture result reporting protocols can improve outcomes of bacteremia, including weekend-onset cases.

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.

Considerations and Caveats in Combating ESKAPE Pathogens against Nosocomial Infections

ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter species) are among the most common opportunistic pathogens in nosocomial infections. ESKAPE pathogens distinguish themselves from normal ones by developing a high level of antibiotic resistance that involves multiple mechanisms. Contemporary therapeutic strategies which are potential options in combating ESKAPE bacteria need further investigation. Herein, a broad overview of the antimicrobial research on ESKAPE pathogens over the past five years is provided with prospective clinical applications.

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.

New antibiotics for the treatment of serious infections in intensive care unit patients

Objective: Nowadays, the infections of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) are a major public health problem; this is due to several factors, in primis an increase in antibiotic resistance and the inappropriate use of antibiotics. Methods: We briefly focus on on both new antibiotics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in the last decade (2010-2019), and on agents in an advanced phase of development that have been developed, or are already approved, for the treatment of serious infections due to multidrug-resistant bacteria, both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Results: An adequate knowledge of the new antibiotics will reduce their inappropriate use with the consequent reduction in the onset of new resistance and decreasing health care costs. Conclusion: Antimicrobial stewardship programs to optimize antimicrobial prescribing and to preserve the effectiveness of the new antimicrobial agents are urgently needed'.

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.

Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Hardware-Associated Vertebral Osteomyelitis with Oritavancin plus Ampicillin

Weekly oritavancin plus ampicillin continuous infusion combination therapy was used to successfully treat a deep spine vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium infection associated with hardware. Checkerboard and time-kill assays confirmed synergy between these two antibiotics. Further synergies of oritavancin and ampicillin with rifampin or the endogenous human antimicrobial peptide cathelicidin LL-37 were demonstrated.

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

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

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

Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus in solid organ transplant recipients: Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice

These updated guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Community of Practice of the American Society of Transplantation address vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) infections in SOT candidates and recipients. VRE are an important cause of infection and have been named by the CDC as a serious public threat. Typically, a commensal of the gastrointestinal tract, VRE may become pathogenic after abdominal organ manipulation like transplantation. This guideline reviews the microbiology, antimicrobial resistance mechanisms, epidemiology, and clinical manifestations of VRE infection in the context of solid organ transplantation. Treatment regimens including combination therapies and novel investigational agents are also reviewed. Finally, an updated appraisal of infection control measures relevant to VRE infection and colonization is presented.