Linezolid versus glycopeptide or beta-lactam for treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

WHO's essential medicines and AWaRe: recommendations on first- and second-choice antibiotics for empiric treatment of clinical infections

The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) prioritizes medicines that have significant global public health value. The EML can also deliver important messages on appropriate medicine use. Since 2017, in response to the growing challenge of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics on the EML have been reviewed and categorized into three groups: Access, Watch, and Reserve, leading to a new categorization called AWaRe. These categories were developed taking into account the impact of different antibiotics and classes on antimicrobial resistance and the implications for their appropriate use. The 2023 AWaRe classification provides empirical guidance on 41 essential antibiotics for over 30 clinical infections targeting both the primary health care and hospital facility setting. A further 257 antibiotics not included on the EML have been allocated an AWaRe group for stewardship and monitoring purposes. This article describes the development of AWaRe, focussing on the clinical evidence base that guided the selection of Access, Watch, or Reserve antibiotics as first and second choices for each infection. The overarching objective was to offer a tool for optimizing the quality of global antibiotic prescribing and reduce inappropriate use by encouraging the use of Access antibiotics (or no antibiotics) where appropriate. This clinical evidence evaluation and subsequent EML recommendations are the basis for the AWaRe antibiotic book and related smartphone applications. By providing guidance on antibiotic prioritization, AWaRe aims to facilitate the revision of national lists of essential medicines, update national prescribing guidelines, and supervise antibiotic use. Adherence to AWaRe would extend the effectiveness of current antibiotics while helping countries expand access to these life-saving medicines for the benefit of current and future patients, health professionals, and the environment.

Effectiveness, safety, and cost of vancomycin and linezolid in Kuwait: A retrospective cohort study

Background

The effectiveness, safety, and cost of vancomycin and linezolid for managing gram-positive bacterial infections in Kuwait are unknown. This study assessed the effectiveness, safety, and cost of vancomycin, teicoplanin and linezolid for managing gram-positive bacterial infections in Kuwait.

Research design and methods

This retrospective study included adult patients who were prescribed antibiotics (vancomycin, teicoplanin, and linezolid) for the treatment of gram-positive infections at five hospitals in Kuwait. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the effectiveness and safety outcomes. A cost analysis was performed on the patients hospitalised for gram-positive infections.

Results

Among 116 patients, 42.2 % (n = 49) received glycopeptides (vancomycin [n = 45] and teicoplanin [n = 4]) or linezolid (n = 67). Clinical cure was achieved in 100 patients without significant intergroup differences (p = 0.34). Thrombocytopenia and acute kidney injury occurred in 19 and 20 patients (p = 0.82 and 0.96), respectively, and their incidence was similar with all the studied agents. The average cost per patient was USD 983.70. The estimated total direct medical costs were USD 894,570.6, the cost was highest for linezolid (USD 469,682.30) and vancomycin (USD 370,342.5), and lowest for teicoplanin (USD 20,799.9).

Conclusions

Glycopeptides and linezolid were highly effective. Linezolid was the most frequently prescribed agent; its effectiveness and safety were similar according to the antibiotic class. However, treatment with linezolid and vancomycin were associated with considerable costs.

Optimal drug therapy for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia in adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Staphylococcus aureus is a significant human pathogen, causing a variety of infections, from skin and soft tissue infections to endocarditis, bone and joint infections and deep tissue abscesses. Mortality from S. aureus bacteraemia remains high, without major therapeutic advances in recent decades.

RECENT FINDINGS

In recent years, optimized dosing of antibiotics is increasingly being recognized as a cornerstone of management for severe infections including S. aureus bacteraemia. This comprehensive review details the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) targets for commonly used antistaphylococcal antibiotics and the doses predicted to achieve them in clinical practice. Recent advances in dosing of teicoplanin and use of cefazolin in CNS infections and findings from combination therapy studies are discussed. Drug exposure relationships related to toxicity are also detailed.

SUMMARY

This review details the different PK/PD targets for drugs used to treat S. aureus bacteraemia and how to apply them in various scenarios. The drug doses that achieve them, and the risks of toxicity are also provided.

Oral minocycline plus rifampicin versus oral linezolid for complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: The AIDA open label, randomized, controlled Phase 4 trial

BACKGROUND

The need for oral, cost-effective treatment for complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs) due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was addressed by the non-inferiority comparisons of oral minocycline plus rifampicin with linezolid.

METHODS

In the AIDA multicenter, open label, randomized, controlled clinical trial, hospitalized adults with cSSSI and documented MRSA were randomly assigned at a 2:1 ratio to either oral 600 mg rifampicin qd plus 100 mg minocycline bid or oral 600 mg linezolid bid for 10 days. The primary endpoint was the clinical cure rate in the clinically evaluable (CE) population at the test-of-cure visit (14 days). Non-inferiority was confirmed if the lower confidence limit (CI) did not fall below the accepted error margin of 15%. The study is registered with EudraCT number 2014-001276-56.

FINDINGS

123 patients recruited between November 2014 and January 2017 were randomly assigned to treatment (81 patients to minocycline plus rifampicin and 42 patients to linezolid). Cure rates were 78.% (46/59, 90% CI 67.3-86.5) and 68.6% (24/35, 90% CI 53.4-81.3), respectively (P = 0.337). The percent difference in cure rates was 9.4% (90% CI -7.2 to 26.8%). Minocycline plus rifampicin combination was deemed non-inferior to linezolid as the lower CI was -7.2% i.e. smaller than the accepted error margin of -15%. Although statistically not significant, the overall rate of adverse events was higher in the linezolid group (47.6%, 20/42 versus 38.3%, 31/81).

INTERPRETATION

Oral minocycline plus rifampicin was non-inferior to oral linezolid treatment providing alternative oral treatment for cSSSI.

FUNDING

The EU Seventh Research Framework Programme.

Update on the Management of Surgical Site Infections

Surgical site infections are an increasingly important issue in nosocomial infections. The progressive increase in antibiotic resistance, the ever-increasing number of interventions and the ever-increasing complexity of patients due to their comorbidities amplify this problem. In this perspective, it is necessary to consider all the risk factors and all the current preventive and prophylactic measures which are available. At the same time, given multiresistant microorganisms, it is essential to consider all the possible current therapeutic interventions. Therefore, our review aims to evaluate all the current aspects regarding the management of surgical site infections.

Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: diagnosis, checklists, adverse events, advice and outcomes

The account of MDR-TB in Finland describes current practice. Genetic testing of primary specimens, whole-genome sequencing, supportive directly observed therapy, checklists and national consilia will contribute to further improvements in managing MDR-TB. https://bit.ly/3rOnb3u.

Investigation of Morchella esculenta and Morchella conica for their antibacterial potential against methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes

Antimicrobial resistance is an alarming problem, especially due to emergence of methicillin-resistance Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). World Health Organization (WHO) has already listed MRSA as a top priority pathogen for the development of novel antibacterial agents. Presently, different therapeutic approaches against bacterial infections are in practice which includes targeting bacterial virulence factors, bacteriophage therapy, and manipulation of the microbiome. Natural products have been efficiently used for centuries to combat bacterial infections. Morchella is a natural fungal product which has been reported to possess broad-spectrum biological activities against bacterial infections. Hence, this study was aimed to evaluate the antibacterial efficacy of two macro-fungi against S. aureus, MRSA, and Streptococcus pyogenes (S. pyogenes). The antibacterial potential of both fungal extracts (Morchella esculenta and Morchella conica) was evaluated using disk diffusion and standard broth microdilution methods. The chemical compounds of both fungi were investigated using ultra-performance liquid chromatography mass spectroscopy (UPLC-MS) analysis. All fungal extracts inhibited growth of tested bacteria with inhibitory zone ranging from 10.66 ± 0.3 to 21.00 ± 1.5 mm. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of tested bacterial growth ranged from 03.33 to 16.0 mg/ml. It was noteworthy that Morchella extracts prevented S. aureus growth in a bactericidal manner with minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) of 8-16 mg/ml. The extracts were also more effective against MRSA than currently available antibiotics. In conclusion, the growth inhibition of tested bacteria by fungal extracts revealed their potential as antibacterial agents and their compounds may be used as drug candidates.

WSES/GAIS/WSIS/SIS-E/AAST global clinical pathways for patients with skin and soft tissue infections

Skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) encompass a variety of pathological conditions that involve the skin and underlying subcutaneous tissue, fascia, or muscle, ranging from simple superficial infections to severe necrotizing infections.

Together, the World Society of Emergency Surgery, the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery, the Surgical Infection Society-Europe, The World Surgical Infection Society, and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma have jointly completed an international multi-society document to promote global standards of care in SSTIs guiding clinicians by describing reasonable approaches to the management of SSTIs.

An extensive non-systematic review was conducted using the PubMed and MEDLINE databases, limited to the English language. The resulting evidence was shared by an international task force with different clinical backgrounds.

Molecular Tools for Guiding Therapy in Patients With Staphylococcal Bone and Joint Infections: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Timely detection of causative pathogens and their antimicrobial resistance are essential for guiding targeted therapies in bone and joint infections (BJI) patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic value of testing osteoarticular samples with the nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) for effective staphylococcal strain identification and the administration of appropriately targeted antimicrobial agents in BJI patients.

METHODS

Five databases, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, were searched for related publications from inception to July 24, 2021. Studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of NAAT to a microbiological culture reference standard of osteoarticular specimens were eligible. Pooled summary values of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of NAAT compared to the microbiological culture reference standard were calculated using bivariate random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

From 906 citations, 11 studies were included. Eleven studies comprising 13 datasets (n = 1047) evaluated NAAT accuracy for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) identification, while seven studies comprising nine datasets (n = 727) evaluated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) identification. Against the microbiological culture reference standard, the pooled summary estimates for detection of both MSSA [sensitivity: 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.93), specificity: 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-0.99), PLR: 34.13 (95% CI 20.54-56.73), NLR: 0.19 (95% CI 0.12-0.3), and DOR: 283.37 (95% CI 129.49-620.1)] and MRSA [sensitivity: 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.91), specificity: 1.0 (95% CI 0.99-1.0), PLR: 62.1 (95% CI 24.5-157.6), NLR: 0.33 (95% CI 0.16-0.69), and DOR: 300.25 (95% CI 85.01-1060.5)] were comparable. Heterogeneity was moderate. GeneXpert was frequently used among NAA tests, and its diagnostic accuracy was in line with the overall pooled summary estimates. The heterogeneity in diagnostic efficacy (P >0.05) could not be explained by a meta-regression and subgroup analysis of the research design, sample condition, and patient selection technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested that NAAT can be applied as the preferred prescreening test for the timely diagnosis of staphylococcal strains associated with BJI in osteoarticular samples for successful antimicrobial therapy.

Vancomycin Use in Children and Neonates across Three Decades: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top-Cited Articles

Vancomycin is frequently prescribed in pediatrics, especially in intensive care unit settings, to treat Gram-positive bacterial infections. This work aims to collect the top-cited articles of pediatric and infectious diseases areas to gather the current evidence and gaps of knowledge on the use of vancomycin in these populations. The most relevant journals reported in the "pediatrics" and "infectious diseases" categories of the 2019 edition of Journal Citation Reports were browsed. Articles with more than 30 citations and published over the last three decades were collected. A bibliometric analysis was performed and 115 articles were retrieved. They were published in 21 journals, with a median impact factor of 4.6 (IQR 2.9-5.4). Sixty-eight of them (59.1%) belonged to "infectious diseases" journals. The most relevant topic was "bloodstream/complicated/invasive infections", followed by "antibiotic resistance/MRSA treatment". As for population distribution, 27 articles were on children only and 27 on neonates, most of which were from intensive care unit (ICU) settings. The current literature mainly deals with vancomycin as a treatment for severe infections and antibiotic resistance, especially in neonatal ICU settings. Lately, attention to new dosing strategies in the neonatal and pediatric population has become a sensible topic.

[Rare superinfection in a COVID-19 patient-A chronology]

Bei einem 55-jährigen Mann, der sich zur elektiven Ablation bei Vorhofflimmern in der Klinik befand, wurde nach einer Reanimationssituation auf der peripheren Station ein SARS-CoV-2-Abstrich positiv getestet. Anamnestisch gab es im Vorwege gesicherten Kontakt zu einem COVID-19-positiven Patienten. Im Verlauf entwickelte sich das Vollbild einer COVID-19-Pneumonie mit umfangreicher intensivmedizinischer Behandlung. Nach rund 2‑wöchiger Therapie musste das Weaning bei erneuter Verschlechterung abgebrochen werden, und es ergaben sich bei dem wiederholt hochseptischen Patienten mikrobiologische Nachweise einer Superinfektion mit Cryptococcus neoformans und später Leclercia adecarboxylata. Der Patient wurde erfolgreich behandelt und überlebte die Erkrankung.

Liver function, quantified by the LiMAx test, as a predictor for the clinical outcome of critically ill patients treated with linezolid

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients commonly suffer from infections that require antimicrobial therapy. In previous studies, liver dysfunction was shown to have an essential impact on the dose selection in these patients. This pilot study aims to assess the influence of liver dysfunction, measured by the novel LiMAx test, on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients treated with linezolid.

METHODS

Twenty-nine critically ill patients were included and treated with linezolid. Indications for linezolid therapy were secondary or tertiary peritonitis (46.7%), bloodstream infection (6.7%) and 46.7% were other infections with gram-positive bacteria. Linezolid Cmin, maximal liver function capacity (LiMAx test) and plasma samples were collected while linezolid therapy was in a steady-state condition. Furthermore, potential factors for the clinical outcome were investigated using logistic regression analysis. Clinical cure was defined as the resolution or significant improvement of clinical symptoms without using additional antibiotic therapy or intervention.

RESULTS

Cured patients presented lower median linezolid Cmin yet a significantly higher mean LiMAx-value compared to the clinical failure group (1.9 mg/L vs. 5.1 mg/L) (349 μg/kg/h vs. 131 μg/kg/h). In the logistic regression model, LiMAx < 178 μg/kg/h was the only independent predictor of clinical failure with a sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 93%.

CONCLUSIONS

The LiMAx test predicts clinical failure more precisely than linezolid trough levels in critically ill surgical patients. Therefore liver failure may have a stronger impact on the outcome of critically ill surgical patients than low linezolid Cmin. While linezolid Cmin failed to predict patient's outcome, LiMAx results were the only independent predictor of clinical failure.

New-Generation Antibiotics for Treatment of Gram-Positive Infections: A Review with Focus on Endocarditis and Osteomyelitis

Infective endocarditis, osteomyelitis, and osteosynthesis-associated infections are mostly caused by Gram-positive bacteria. They are often difficult to treat and are associated with a poor prognosis. In the past 20 years, nine antibiotic drugs with predominant activity against Gram-positive bacteria have been introduced and approved by the Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency: ceftaroline, daptomycin, telavancin, dalbavancin, oritavancin, linezolid, tedizolid, delafloxacin, and omadacycline. This narrative review aims to provide an overview on these antibiotics with a special focus on their use in infective endocarditis, osteomyelitis, and osteosynthesis-associated infections. Although some of these approved antibiotics are promising, they should not be used as first- or second-line therapy, awaiting more clinical data.

Meta-analysis of vancomycin versus linezolid in pneumonia with proven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

OBJECTIVE

American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) guidelines suggest that linezolid (LZD) is preferred over vancomycin (VCM) for treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia. We conducted a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis to compare VCM and LZD efficacy against proven MRSA pneumonia.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed up to November 2019. The outcomes of the meta-analysis were mortality, clinical cure, microbiological evaluation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 1239 patients and eight retrospective cohort or case-control studies (CSs) with a total 6125 patients were identified. Clinical cure and microbiological eradication rates were significantly increased in patients treated with LZD in RCTs (clinical cure: risk ratio (RR) = 0.81, 95% confidential interval (CI) = 0.71-0.92; microbiological eradication: RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.62-0.81) and CSs (clinical cure: odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.18-0.69). However, mortality was comparable between patients treated with VCM and LZD in RCTs (RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.88-1.32) and CSs (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.94-1.53). Likewise, there was no significant difference in adverse events between VCM and LZD in CSs (thrombocytopenia: OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.50-1.82; nephrotoxicity: OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 0.85-3.45).

CONCLUSIONS

According to our meta-analysis of RCTs and CSs conducted worldwide, we found robust evidence to corroborate the IDSA guidelines for the treatment of proven MRSA pneumonia.

Molecule Property Analyses of Active Compounds for Mycobacterium tuberculosis

Tuberculosis (TB) continues to claim the lives of around 1.7 million people per year. Most concerning are the reports of multidrug drug resistance. Paradoxically, this global health pandemic is demanding new therapies when resources and interest are waning. However, continued tuberculosis drug discovery is critical to address the global health need and burgeoning multidrug resistance. Many diverse classes of antitubercular compounds have been identified with activity in vitro and in vivo. Our analyses of over 100 active leads are representative of thousands of active compounds generated over the past decade, suggests that they come from few chemical classes or natural product sources. We are therefore repeatedly identifying compounds that are similar to those that preceded them. Our molecule-centered cheminformatics analyses point to the need to dramatically increase the diversity of chemical libraries tested and get outside of the historic Mtb property space if we are to generate novel improved antitubercular leads.

Linezolid versus vancomycin cost in the treatment of staphylococcal pneumonia

OBJECTIVE

Staphylococcusaureus is involved in around 20% of nosocomial pneumonia cases. Vancomycin used to be the reference antibiotic in this indication, but new molecules have been commercialized, such as linezolid. Previous studies comparing vancomycin and linezolid were based on models. Comparing their real costs from a hospital perspective was needed.

METHODS

We performed a bicentric retrospective analysis with a cost-minimization analysis. The hospital antibiotic acquisition costs were used, as well as the laboratory test and administration costs from the health insurance cost scale. The cost of each hospital stay was evaluated using the national cost scale per diagnosis related group (DRG), and was then weighted by the stay duration.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients were included. All bacteria identified in pulmonary samples were S. aureus. The cost of nursing care per stay with linezolid was €234.10 (SD=91.50) vs. €381.70 (SD=184.70) with vancomycin (P=0.0029). The cost of laboratory tests for linezolid was €172.30 (SD=128.90) per stay vs. €330.70 (SD=198.40) for vancomycin (P=0.0005). The acquisition cost of linezolid per stay was not different from vancomycin based on the price of the generic drug (€54.92 [SD=20.54] vs. €40.30 [SD=22.70]). After weighting by the duration of stay observed, the mean cost per hospital stay was €47,411.50 for linezolid and €57,694.0 for vancomycin (NSD).

CONCLUSION

These results, in favor of linezolid, support other former pharmacoeconomic study based on models. The mean cost per hospitalization stay was not statistically different between the two study groups, but a trend in favor of linezolid is emerging.

Network meta-analysis and pharmacoeconomic evaluation of antibiotics for the treatment of patients infected with complicated skin and soft structure infection and hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated penumonia

Background

Infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) cause serious health risks and significant economic burdens and the preferred drugs are still controversial.

Methods

We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy and safety of antibiotics used to treat inpatients with complicated skin and soft structure infections (cSSSI) or hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP). We also developed a decision tree model to assess the cost-effectiveness of antibiotics.

Results

Forty-nine randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria (34 for cSSSI, 15 for HAP/VAP) and compared the efficacy and safety of 16 antibiotics. For cSSSI, NMA indicated that for clinical cure, linezolid was superior than vancomycin (odds ratio (OR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19–2.02), while tedizolid (OR 1.39, CI 0.70–2.76) was similar to vancomycin. In terms of safety, there were no significant differences between any two interventions on total adverse events. Based on drug and hospital costs in America, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-year saved for linezolid and tedizolid compared with vancomycin were US$2833 and US$5523. For HAP/VAP, there were no significant effects either for clinical cure or for safety endpoints between linezolid and vancomycin in NMA. ICERs per life-year saved for linezolid compared with vancomycin were US$2185.

Conclusion

In these clinical trials, considering efficacy, safety, and cost-effectivenes, linezolid and tedizolid showed their superiority in MRSA cSSSI; while linezolid might be recommended to treat MRSA pneumonia. Although vancomycin was not cost-effective in pharmacoeconomic evaluation, it is still the first-line treatment for MRSA infection in the clinical practice. This study might provide new insights of therapeutic choices for patients with MRSA infections whilst awaiting the arrival of higher quality evidence.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13756-019-0518-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

2018 WSES/SIS-E consensus conference: recommendations for the management of skin and soft-tissue infections

Skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) encompass a variety of pathological conditions that involve the skin and underlying subcutaneous tissue, fascia, or muscle, ranging from simple superficial infections to severe necrotizing infections. SSTIs are a frequent clinical problem in surgical departments. In order to clarify key issues in the management of SSTIs, a task force of experts met in Bertinoro, Italy, on June 28, 2018, for a specialist multidisciplinary consensus conference under the auspices of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and the Surgical Infection Society Europe (SIS-E). The multifaceted nature of these infections has led to a collaboration among general and emergency surgeons, intensivists, and infectious disease specialists, who have shared these clinical practice recommendations.

Comparative efficacy and safety of antibiotics used to treat acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: Results of a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This NMA compared the efficacy and safety between IV antibiotics that are used in the current standard of care for managing adult patients (≥18 years of age) with ABSSSI.

METHODS

Comparators were chosen on the basis that both direct and indirect comparisons between the interventions of interest could be performed. Outcomes of the analysis were selected on the basis that they are frequently measured and reported in trials involving ABSSSI patients, and only published randomised control trials of any size and duration and with any blinding status were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. The NMA was performed using both a fixed-effect and random-effect model. Efficacy-related endpoints were (1) clinical treatment success and (2) microbiological success at TOC visit. Safety-related endpoints were (1) number of discontinuations due to AEs/SAEs, (2) patients experiencing AEs, (3) patients experiencing SAEs and (4) all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Study interventions included daptomycin, dalbavancin, linezolid and tigecycline. Vancomycin was the comparator in all studies, except in two where it was linezolid and teicoplanin. The NMA showed that irrespective of patient subgroup, the likelihood of clinical and microbiological success with dalbavancin was statistically similar to the comparators studied. No statistically significant differences were observed between dalbavancin and any of the comparators in the discontinuation rate due to AEs/SAEs. In contrast, dalbavancin was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of experiencing an AE than linezolid, a significantly lower likelihood of experiencing a SAE than vancomycin and daptomycin, and a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality than vancomycin, linezolid and tigecycline.

CONCLUSION

Dalbavancin affords a promising, new alternative IV antimicrobial agent which is as effective as traditional therapies, but with the added benefit of enabling clinicians to treat patients with ABSSSI in different organisational settings. Notwithstanding, any introduction of an effective treatment with a differential mode of administration into healthcare systems must be followed by a change in clinical practice and patient management in order to fully achieve desirable economic outcomes.

Rare cause of back pain: Staphylococcus aureus vertebral osteomyelitis complicated by recurrent epidural abscess and severe sepsis

An epidural abscess represents a rare acute medical emergency, with a reported incidence of 2.5/10 000 hospital admissions annually. The clinical features include fever, spinal pain, radiating nerve root pain and leg weakness. When sepsis is present, prompt recognition is required to initiate appropriate antimicrobial therapy and surgical decompression. We present the case of a man aged 68 years presenting to the emergency department with a 3-day history of fever, low back, right hip and leg pain. He was hypoxic, tachycardic and hypotensive. He required intubation and ventilation. An MRI spine confirmed a posterior epidural abscess from T12 to L4. Blood cultures revealed Staphylococcus aureus He started treatment with linezolid and underwent incision and drainage. He remained septic and 8 days later, a repeat MRI spine showed a peripherally enhancing posterior epidural collection from L2/L3 to L4/L5, consistent with a recurrent epidural abscess. Further drainage was performed. He developed bilateral knee pain requiring washout. His right knee synovial biopsy cultured S. aureus He continued treatment with linezolid for 6 weeks until his C reactive protein was 0.8 ng/L. He started neurorehabilitation. 10 weeks later, he became feverish with lumbar spine tenderness. An MRI spine showed discitis of the L5/S1 endplate. A CT-guided biopsy confirmed discitis and osteomyelitis. Histology was positive for S. aureus and he started treatment with oral linezolid. After 19 days, he was discharged with 1 week of oral linezolid 600 mg 2 times per day, followed by 1 further week of oral clindamycin 600 mg 4 times daily. This case report reinforces the importance of maintaining a high clinical suspicion, with a prompt diagnosis and combined medical and surgical treatment to prevent adverse outcomes in this patient cohort. With spinal surgical services centralised, physicians may not encounter this clinical diagnosis more often in day-to-day hospital medical practice. The unique aspect of this case is the persistence and then the recurrence (despite 6 weeks of antimicrobial therapy and a second debridement) of S. aureus infection. Furthermore, the paucity of clinical recommendations and the controversy regarding the adequate duration of antimicrobial therapy are notable features of this case.

Optimization of linezolid treatment regimens for Gram-positive bacterial infections based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis

AIM

To optimize linezolid treatment regimens for Gram-positive bacterial infections based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis.

MATERIALS & METHODS

The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) distribution of 572 Gram-positive strains from patients with clinically confirmed infections was analyzed. Using the Monte Carlo simulation method, the cumulative fraction of response and probability of target attainment were determined for linezolid regimens of 600 mg q.12h and q.8h Results: Linezolid dosage of 600 mg q.12h yielded >90% cumulative fraction of response and probability of target attainment for staphylococcal infections with an MIC of ≤1 mg/l, enterococcal infections with higher MIC values required 600 mg q.8h.

CONCLUSION

Linezolid 600 mg q.12h is still the clinically recommended empirical dosage for Gram-positive bacterial infections. However, as bacterial MICs increase, 600 mg q.8h may be required to achieve better efficacy.

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic evaluation of linezolid for the treatment of staphylococcal infections in critically ill patients

Several studies have demonstrated that the ideal therapeutic effect of linezolid cannot be achieved in critically ill patients with the recommended standard dosing regimen of 600 mg every 12 h (q12h). Moreover, the optimal strategy for successful treatment is still lacking. This study analysed factors influencing the efficacy of linezolid treatment and determined the target for successful treatment by logistic regression in 27 critically ill patients with staphylococcal infection who received linezolid 600 mg q12h. The results showed that only the 24-h area under the concentration-time curve to minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC24/MIC) ratio was significantly associated with staphylococcal eradication. Reaching 80% bacterial eradication required an AUC24/MIC of 120.5, defining the therapeutic target. Different dosing regimens were evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the optimal dosage strategy for linezolid. Although the probability of target attainment (PTA) was high (>99.9%) for the standard dosing regimen at MIC ≤ 1 mg/L, the PTA was almost 0 at MIC = 2 mg/L, thus the dosing regimen required adjustment. In addition, if the dosing regimen was adjusted to 600 mg every 8 h or 600 mg every 6 h, the major staphylococci (except for MRSA and MSSA) exhibited a cumulative fraction of response of >80%, showing a higher treatment success. These findings indicate that a strategy of high linezolid dosage may be needed to increase the probability of successful treatment at MIC > 1 mg/L. The role of therapeutic drug monitoring should be encouraged for optimising linezolid exposure in critically ill patients.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: role of linezolid in the People's Republic of China

The burden of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia in the People’s Republic of China is high, with methicillin-resistance rates greater than 80% reported for patients with S. aureus pneumonia treated in intensive care units. Historically, vancomycin was the treatment of choice for patients with hospital-acquired MRSA infections. Recent evidence suggests that the minimum inhibitory concentration for vancomycin is increasing. Additionally, patients treated with vancomycin require monitoring of vancomycin trough concentrations and can develop nephrotoxicity. Linezolid is a treatment option for patients with hospital-acquired MRSA infections that can be administered either intravenously or orally. Analysis of data from a worldwide linezolid surveillance program initiated in the year 2004 shows no evidence of increasing linezolid minimum inhibitory concentrations. The clinical efficacy of linezolid for patients with gram-positive, including MRSA, nosocomial pneumonia, was evaluated in numerous studies. In general, results from these studies show higher or similar clinical success with no mortality difference for linezolid compared to vancomycin treated patients. Results from a Phase IV study enrolling patients with MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia suggest higher clinical cure rates for linezolid compared to vancomycin treated patients. Although acquisition costs are higher for linezolid compared to vancomycin therapy, evidence suggests similar overall medical costs. Cost-analysis results from a Chinese perspective show that linezolid dominated vancomycin therapy for MRSA nosocomial pneumonia in ∼35% of bootstrap simulations whereas vancomycin dominated linezolid in less than 2% of bootstrap simulations. In summary, results from both clinical and economic studies, including studies conducted from a Chinese perspective, support the use of linezolid for the treatment of patients with MRSA nosocomial pneumonia.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

MRSA in Croatia: prevalence and management

Infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are associated with increased morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay. MRSA is a major pathogen in hospitals and an important pathogen in community infections with few severe and fatal cases. However, MRSA causes the majority of skin and soft tissue infections in the US. The burden of community MRSA is much smaller in Europe, but there are reports of livestock-associated MRSA (LA-MRSA) isolated from pigs and cattle causing significant infections in the people who are connected to these farms. MRSA has been present in Croatia for more than 45 years, and it exerts a different impact on health-care infections. A remarkable increase in MRSA percentage was noted in primarily sterile samples in 2002 (37%) in comparison to 2001 (31%). This percentage remained quite high until 2008, when the first signs of a reduced trend were observed. The lowest percentage was 22% in 2012.

The challenge of antibiotic resistance in haematology patients

Bacterial infections were once a major obstacle to the treatment of acute leukaemia. Improvement in management strategies, including the use of broad-spectrum antibacterial drugs targeting Gram-negative bacteria, has reduced the mortality in neutropenic patients developing blood stream infections and other severe infections. In many countries these achievements are threatened by development of multi-resistant bacteria, such as Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. This review addresses the epidemiology, clinical importance and possible management of these multi-resistant organisms.

The effect of inoculum size on selection of in vitro resistance to vancomycin, daptomycin, and linezolid in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

OBJECTIVES

The inoculum effect (IE) is an increase in the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) at high bacterial densities. The effect of three inoculum sizes on the selection of resistance to vancomycin, daptomycin, and linezolid was investigated in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

METHODS

Low (10(4) CFU/ml), medium (10(6) CFU/ml), and high (10(8) CFU/ml) inocula of MRSA were exposed to twofold increasing concentrations of either drug during 15 days of cycling. MICs for low (MICL), medium (MICM), and high (MICH) inocula were determined daily. Conventional MICs were measured at days 1, 5, 10, and 15. Experiments were performed in triplicate.

RESULTS

At the beginning of the experiment a small IE was observed for vancomycin (MICL=1 μg/ml, MICM=1-2 μg/ml, and MICH=2 μg/ml) and a significant IE for daptomycin (MICL=0.25 μg/ml, MICM=0.25-0.5 μg/ml, and MICH=2 μg/ml). Linezolid exhibited no IE at low and medium inocula (MICL=1 μg/ml and MICM=1-2 μg/ml), but with the high inoculum, concentrations up to 2,048 μg/ml did not fully inhibit visual growth. During cycling, increase of MIC was observed for all antibiotics. At day 15, MICL, MICM, and MICH of vancomycin were 2-4, 4-8, and 4-16 μg/ml and of daptomycin were 0.5-2, 8-128, and 64-256 μg/ml, respectively. MICL and MICM of linezolid were 1 and 2-4 μg/ml, respectively. Conventional MICs showed vancomycin and daptomycin selection of resistance since day 5 depending on the inocula. No selection of linezolid resistance was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed the importance of the inoculum size in the development of resistance. Measures aimed at lowering the inoculum at the site of infection should be used whenever possible in parallel to antimicrobial therapy.

Comparative efficacy of antibiotics for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI): a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of existing treatments for ABSSSI focusing on the novel lipoglycopeptide oritavancin.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, CENTRAL (Cochrane), and select conferences were searched for randomized controlled trials investigating antimicrobial agents for the treatment of ABSSSI. NMA was used to estimate the odds ratios of the Test-Of-Cure (TOC) and Early Clinical Response (ECR) outcomes for treatments relative to vancomycin in the ITT populations. Sub-group analyses in MRSA and MSSA populations were conducted for TOC; sensitivity analyses investigated the use of the clinically evaluable (CE) populations and the restriction to trials following the recent FDA guidelines for clinical trials.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 52 trials. The most commonly investigated treatments were vancomycin and linezolid; most trials reported TOC, but not ECR. The posterior mean and 95% credible intervals for odds ratios of TOC for antimicrobial agents relative to vancomycin were: linezolid (1.55; 0.91-2.57), daptomycin (2.18; 0.90-5.42), and oritavancin 1200 mg (1.06; 0.80-1.43). The odds ratio of ECR for oritavancin 1200 mg was 1.02 (0.23-4.33). In the MRSA sub-group the odds ratios relative to vancomycin for TOC were: linezolid (1.55; 0.96-2.46), daptomycin (0.74; 0.13-3.66), and oritavancin 1200 mg (0.94; 0.44-2.02). In the MSSA sub-group they were linezolid (1.36; 0.15-13.34) and oritavancin 1200 mg (0.82; 0.08-7.83). These results were robust to the sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA provides a unified framework for the comparison of all available antimicrobial agents used in the treatment of ABSSSI and is the first to assess the ECR end-point. The results suggest equivalence of clinical efficacy between vancomycin, daptomycin, linezolid, and novel antimicrobial agents including oritavancin for the treatment of ABSSSI at TOC. The wide uncertainty margins indicate the heterogeneity of the available evidence and the need for further research.

New antibiotics against gram-positives: present and future indications

Gram-positive cocci are the most frequent aetiology of community and nosocomially bacterial acquired infections. The prevalence of multidrug-resistant gram-positive bacteria is increasing and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. New antibiotics will be available in the European market during the next months. This revision is focused on lipoglycopeptides, new cephalosporins active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and the new oxazolidinone, tedizolid. The purpose of this review is to describe their in vitro activity, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics, and experience from clinical trials.

Diagnosis and treatment of bacteremia and endocarditis due to Staphylococcus aureus. A clinical guideline from the Spanish Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (SEIMC)

Both bacteremia and infective endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus are common and severe diseases. The prognosis may darken not infrequently, especially in the presence of intracardiac devices or methicillin-resistance. Indeed, the optimization of the antimicrobial therapy is a key step in the outcome of these infections. The high rates of treatment failure and the increasing interest in the influence of vancomycin susceptibility in the outcome of infections caused by both methicillin-susceptible and -resistant isolates has led to the research of novel therapeutic schemes. Specifically, the interest raised in recent years on the new antimicrobials with activity against methicillin-resistant staphylococci has been also extended to infections caused by susceptible strains, which still carry the most important burden of infection. Recent clinical and experimental research has focused in the activity of new combinations of antimicrobials, their indication and role still being debatable. Also, the impact of an appropriate empirical antimicrobial treatment has acquired relevance in recent years. Finally, it is noteworthy the impact of the implementation of a systematic bundle of measures for improving the outcome. The aim of this clinical guideline is to provide an ensemble of recommendations in order to improve the treatment and prognosis of bacteremia and infective endocarditis caused by S. aureus, in accordance to the latest evidence published.

World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines for management of skin and soft tissue infections

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) encompass a variety of pathological conditions ranging from simple superficial infections to severe necrotizing soft tissue infections. Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are potentially life-threatening infections of any layer of the soft tissue compartment associated with widespread necrosis and systemic toxicity. Successful management of NSTIs involves prompt recognition, timely surgical debridement or drainage, resuscitation and appropriate antibiotic therapy. A worldwide international panel of experts developed evidence-based guidelines for management of soft tissue infections. The multifaceted nature of these infections has led to a collaboration among surgeons, intensive care and infectious diseases specialists, who have shared these guidelines, implementing clinical practice recommendations.

Novel antibiotic treatment for skin and soft tissue infection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) is a common and significant indication for antibiotic treatment. The microbial aetiology is becoming more resistant to available antibiotics and the treatment of patients is additionally challenged by extremes of age, obesity, diabetes and other co-morbidities. This review examines recent antimicrobial developments.

RECENT FINDINGS

In many parts of the world, multidrug-resistant (MDR) staphylococci are the predominant cause of ABSSSI in both the community and in hospital. Increasing resistance in Gram-negative organisms presents problems in the management of surgical-site infections. Most new antibiotics have been developed to treat MDR Gram-positive bacteria and there are few agents to treat infections caused by MDR Gram-negative pathogens.

SUMMARY

A number of novel agents are available clinically, with other agents of related chemical structure under development. There are no entirely new classes of antibiotics. Maintaining the efficacy of antimicrobial treatment require effective antibiotic stewardship, good infection prevention and the development of further new antibiotics.

Antistaphylococcal penicillins versus cephalosporins for definitive treatment of meticillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The objective of this study was to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) and cephalosporins for the definitive treatment of patients with meticillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteraemia. PubMed and Scopus electronic databases were searched up to December 2013. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome of interest. A meta-analysis of unadjusted and adjusted data was performed. Seven articles (1643 patients) were included; all but one were retrospective studies, and three of them employed propensity score matching. The studies enrolled primarily adults hospitalised in medical wards for primary or secondary community-acquired, healthcare-associated or nosocomial MSSA bacteraemia. Several ASPs and cephalosporins were compared. Unadjusted 30-day mortality was lower in patients treated with ASPs than in those treated with cephalosporins [risk ratio (RR)=0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40-0.98]. Propensity score-adjusted 30-day mortality was not different in patients receiving ASPs or cephalosporins (RR=0.75, 95% CI 0.41-1.39). Substantial heterogeneity and publication bias were found in these analyses. Both unadjusted (RR=0.85, 95% CI 0.54-1.32) and adjusted (RR=1.42, 95% CI 0.22-9.06) 90-day mortality did not differ between patients receiving ASPs or cephalosporins. Limited data regarding adverse events, development of resistance and recurrence were available. In conclusion, the limited available published data derive from retrospective studies and show that there appears to be no statistically significant difference in mortality between ASPs and cephalosporins for the treatment of MSSA bacteraemia.

Quantification of linezolid in serum by LC-MS/MS using semi-automated sample preparation and isotope dilution internal standardization

BACKGROUND

Linezolid serum concentrations have been shown to be highly variable in critically ill patients with often sub-therapeutic drug levels regarding minimal inhibitory concentrations for relevant pathogens. Consequently, therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid must be considered, requiring a reliable and convenient analytical method. We therefore developed and validated an LC-MS/MS method applying isotope dilution internal standardization and on-line solid phase extraction for serum linezolid quantification.

METHODS

Sample preparation was based on protein precipitation and on-line solid phase extraction with two-dimensional liquid chromatography and column switching. Three-fold deuterated linezolid was used as the internal standard. The method was validated involving two separate LC-MS/MS systems covering the concentration range of 0.13-32 mg/L. The run time was 4 min.

RESULTS

Validation revealed good analytical performance, with inaccuracy <6% and imprecision of <7.3% (CV) for six quality control samples (0.38-16.0 mg/L). The method was found to be robust during the validation process and during a pharmacokinetic study so far involving 600 samples. Comparative measurements on two LC-MS/MS systems revealed close agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

This LC-MS/MS assay described herein is a convenient, robust and reliable method for linezolid quantification in serum which can be routinely applied using different LC-MS/MS systems. The method can be used for clinical studies and subsequent TDM of linezolid.

A propensity score analysis shows that empirical treatment with linezolid does not increase the thirty-day mortality rate in patients with Gram-negative bacteremia

The role of linezolid in empirical therapy of suspected bacteremia remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of empirical use of linezolid or glycopeptides in addition to other antibiotics on the 30-day mortality rates in patients with Gram-negative bacteremia. For this purpose, 1,126 patients with Gram-negative bacteremia in the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona from 2000 to 2012 were included in this study. In order to compare the mortality rates between patients who received linezolid or glycopeptides, the propensity scores on baseline variables were used to balance the treatment groups, and both propensity score matching and propensity-adjusted logistic regression were used to compare the 30-day mortality rates between the groups. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 16.0% during the study period. Sixty-eight patients received empirical treatment with linezolid, and 1,058 received glycopeptides. The propensity score matching included 64 patients in each treatment group. After matching, the mortality rates were 14.1% (9/64) in patients who received glycopeptides and 21.9% (14/64) in those who received linezolid, and a nonsignificant association between empirical linezolid treatment and mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 3.82; P = 0.275, McNemar's test) was found. This association remained nonsignificant when variables that remained unbalanced after matching were included in a conditional logistic regression model. Further, the stratified propensity score analysis did not show any significant relationship between empirical linezolid treatment and the mortality rate after adjustment by propensity score quintiles or other variables potentially associated with mortality. In conclusion, the propensity score analysis showed that empirical treatment with linezolid compared with that with glycopeptides was not associated with 30-day mortality rates in patients with Gram-negative bacteremia.

Efficacy and safety of linezolid for the treatment of infections in children: a meta-analysis

Linezolid is an oxazolidinone antibacterial agent, with activity against Gram-positive bacteria. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linezolid in children with infections caused by Gram-positive pathogens. A systematic search was conducted by two independent reviewers to identify published studies up to September 2013. The accumulated relevant literature was subsequently systematically reviewed, and a meta-analysis was conducted. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of linezolid in children versus other antimicrobial agents for infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria. The primary outcome was treatment success in patients who received at least one dose of study drug, had clinical evidence of disease, and had complete follow-up. Meta-analysis was conducted with random effects models because of heterogeneity across the trials. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), involving 815 patients, were included. Linezolid was slightly more effective than control antibiotic agents, but the difference was not statistically significant [odds ratio (OR) = 1.39, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.98]. Treatment with linezolid was not associated with more adverse effects in general (OR = 0.61, 95 % CI 0.25-1.48). Eradication efficiency did not differ between linezolid and control regimens, but the sample size for these comparisons was small.

CONCLUSION

The use of linezolid cannot be steadily supported from the results of the current meta-analysis. It appears to be slightly more effective than control antibiotic agents, but the difference was not significant, and the serious limitations present in this study restrict its use. Further studies providing evidence for clinical and microbiological efficacy of linezolid will support its use.

Variability of linezolid concentrations after standard dosing in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study

Introduction

Severe infections in intensive care patients show high morbidity and mortality rates. Linezolid is an antimicrobial drug frequently used in critically ill patients. Recent data indicates that there might be high variability of linezolid serum concentrations in intensive care patients receiving standard doses. This study was aimed to evaluate whether standard dosing of linezolid leads to therapeutic serum concentrations in critically ill patients.

Methods

In this prospective observational study, 30 critically ill adult patients with suspected infections received standard dosing of 600 mg linezolid intravenously twice a day. Over 4 days, multiple serum samples were obtained from each patient, in order to determine the linezolid concentrations by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry.

Results

A high variability of serum linezolid concentrations was observed (range of area under the linezolid concentration time curve over 24 hours (AUC₂₄) 50.1 to 453.9 mg/L, median 143.3 mg*h/L; range of trough concentrations (C_min) < 0.13 to 14.49 mg/L, median 2.06 mg/L). Furthermore, potentially subtherapeutic linezolid concentrations over 24 hours and at single time points (defined according to the literature as AUC₂₄ < 200 mg*h/L and C_min < 2 mg/L) were observed for 63% and 50% of the patients, respectively. Finally, potentially toxic levels (defined as AUC₂₄ > 400 mg*h/L and C_min > 10 mg/L) were observed for 7 of the patients.

Conclusions

A high variability of linezolid serum concentrations with a substantial percentage of potentially subtherapeutic levels was observed in intensive care patients. The findings suggest that therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid might be helpful for adequate dosing of linezolid in critically ill patients.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01793012. Registered 24 January 2013.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2013 we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

History of antibiotics: from fluoroquinolones to daptomycin (Part 2)

In the Modern Era, physicians attested to the reciprocal influence among a technologically advanced society, rapid scientific progresses in medicine, and the need for new antimicrobials. The results of these changes were not only seen in the prolongation of life expectancy but also by the emergence of new pathogens. We first observed the advent of Gram-negative bacteria as a major source of nosocomial infections. The treatment of these microorganisms was complicated by the appearance and spread of drug resistance. We first focused on the development of two major classes of antimicrobials still currently used for the treatment of Gram-negative bacteria, such as fluoroquinolones and carbapenemes. Subsequently, we directed our attention to the growth of the incidence of infections due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Although the first MRSA was already isolated in 1961, the treatment of this new pathogen has been based on the efficacy of vancomycin for more than four decades. Only in the last 15 yr, we assisted in the development of new antimicrobial agents such as linezolid and daptomycin.

Disseminated staphylococcal disease in healthy children-experience from two tertiary care hospitals of West Bengal

OBJECTIVES

To assess the etiology, precipitating factors, treatment and outcome of disseminated staphylococcal disease (DSD) in healthy immunocompetent children.

METHODS

This hospital based observational prospective study was conducted in two tertiary care hospitals of West Bengal, India during the period of March, 2011 through February, 2012. Inclusion criteria were 1) children between 1 and 12 y and 2) clinical features DSD characterized by i) involvement of at least two distant organs with presence of gram positive cocci in clusters and/or growth of Staphylococcus aureus from at least one normally sterile body fluid, ii) fever, persistent bacteremia despite antibiotics and focal involvement of two or more separate tissue sites (skin, bone, joint, kidney, lung, liver, heart).

RESULTS

Thirty six cases fulfilled the criteria of DSD with mean age in years 6.03 ± 3.04 (range 1-12). The age group of 5-12 y was found to be more vulnerable (p < 0.001). Septic arthritis following accidental blunt closed trauma, was the significant precipitating factor for DSD in this age group (p = 0.031). Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was the causative agent in all the cases. Vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA) was detected in 88.9 % of cases. All cases were sensitive to linezolid. No significant side effects were observed with 28 d of linezolid therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

DSD is more common in 5-12 y age group. Trauma is a significant precipitating factor for DSD in this age group. Linezolid may be considered as the first line drug in DSD with MRSA.

Reduction of linezolid-associated thrombocytopenia by the dose adjustment based on the risk factors such as basal platelet count and body weight

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of dose modification based on the risk factor for linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia. A multivariate logistic regression analysis performed in the observational study showed that low body weight of <55 kg (odds ratio [OR]: 33.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.16-510.1, P = 0.012) and the baseline platelet count of <200 × 10(3)/mm(3) (OR: 24.9, 95% CI: 1.53-404.7, P = 0.024) were found to be risk factors for linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia. In the subsequent intervention study, in which daily dose of linezolid was set to 20 mg/kg in patients with either one of the risk factors or 1200 mg in those without any risk factor, the onset of thrombocytopenia was significantly prolonged in the intervention study group (P = 0.043), without reducing clinical efficacy. These findings suggest that dose adjustment of linezolid is effective in preventing thrombocytopenia without reducing its clinical efficacy in patients having risk factors.