Activity of tedizolid against gram-positive clinical isolates causing infections in Europe and surrounding areas (2014–2015)

National surveillance of antimicrobial susceptibilities to ceftaroline, dalbavancin, telavancin, tedizolid, eravacycline, omadacycline, and other comparator antibiotics, and genetic characteristics of bacteremic Staphylococcus aureus isolates in adults: Results from the Surveillance of Multicenter Antimicrobial Resistance in Taiwan (SMART) program in 2020

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) causes invasive infections and is associated with community-acquired infections (CAIs) and hospital-associated infections (HAIs). In 2020, 315 S. aureus isolates, including 145 methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) and 170 MRSA, mainly associated with bacteremia and mostly CAIs, were collected from 16 hospitals in different regions of Taiwan. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined using the Sensititre™ complete automated AST system. Staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) types were analysed using multiplex polymerase chain reaction. The median age of patients infected with MRSA was significantly higher than that of patients infected with MSSA (72.5 years vs. 67.0 years, P=0.027). MIC₅₀/MIC₉₀ values of eravacycline and omadacycline were 0.06/0.12, and 0.25/0.5, respectively. Of the MRSA isolates, 4.1% presented susceptible dose-dependence to ceftaroline, most of which (85.7%) were HAI- and Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL)-negative. Among the MRSA isolates, 7.1% were not susceptible to telavancin and tedizolid (mainly type IV, PVL-negative, and CAI), 0.6% were not susceptible to daptomycin (type III, PVL-negative, and HAI), and 1.8% were not susceptible to quinupristin/dalfopristin (three isolates were type III, IV, and V_T, respectively, and all were PVL-negative), but all were susceptible to dalbavancin. In conclusion, patients with bacteremia caused by MRSA were older than those with bacteremia caused by MSSA, SCCmec type IV was more predominant in CAI than in HAI, and MRSA isolates not susceptible to novel anti-MRSA antimicrobials belonged to types II, III, or IV. Further studies that include comprehensive demographics and more detailed descriptions of other antimicrobial-resistant genes are urgently needed.

Microwave-assisted preparation of Ag/Fe magnetic biochar from clivia leaves for adsorbing daptomycin antibiotics

Novel clivia biochar adsorbing daptomycin (DAP) was prepared by microwave digestion–anaerobic carbonization in this work. Fe/Ag submicron particles were introduced to the biochar surface based on the reducibility of biochar to enhance its adsorption capacity. Characterization confirmed that modified biochar (AF-biochar) had a higher particle size (126 μm), larger specific surface area (521.692 m2 g−1), richer pore structure, and higher thermal stability. The effects of the main variables (e.g., the solution pH, contact time, initial DAP concentration, and temperature) were investigated during adsorption. The results showed that AF-biochar could reach the adsorption equilibrium at pH 4.8 for 85 min. Besides, the adsorption capacity was 48.25 mg g−1, and the adsorption efficiency was 96.50% when the concentration of DAP was 25 mg L−1. The pseudo-second-order kinetics (R 2 = 0.9997), Langmuir equation (R 2 = 0.9999), and thermodynamics (R 2 = 0.9631) of AF-biochar fit well, indicating that the main adsorption process of AF-biochar was spontaneous, exothermic, and monolayer. Their adsorption was analyzed by physical and chemical adsorption. The main adsorption mechanisms included the electron donor–acceptor interaction, electrostatic force interaction, Lewis acid–base interaction, and H-bond interaction.

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT02019420.

Current Landscape and Future Perspective of Oxazolidinone Scaffolds Containing Antibacterial Drugs

The widespread use of antibiotics has made the problem of bacterial resistance increasingly serious, and the study of new drug-resistant bacteria has become the main direction of antibacterial drug research. Among antibiotics, the fully synthetic oxazolidinone antibacterial drugs linezolid and tedizolid have been successfully marketed and have achieved good clinical treatment effects. Oxazolidinone antibacterial drugs have good pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics and unique antibacterial mechanisms, and resistant bacteria are sensitive to them. This Perspective focuses on reviewing oxazolidinones based on the structural modification of linezolid and new potential oxazolidinone drugs in the past 10 years, mainly describing their structure, antibacterial activity, safety, druggability, and so on, and discusses their structure-activity relationships, providing insight into the reasonable design of safer and more potent oxazolidinone antibacterial drugs.

Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Analysis of Tedizolid Phosphate Compared to Linezolid for the Treatment of Infections Caused by Gram-Positive Bacteria

Tedizolid and linezolid have antibacterial activity against the most important acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infection (ABSSSIs) pathogens. The objective of this work was to apply PK/PD analysis to evaluate the probability of attaining the pharmacodynamic target of these antimicrobials based on the susceptibility patterns of different clinical isolates causing ABSSSI. Pharmacokinetic and microbiological data were obtained from the literature. PK/PD breakpoints, the probability of target attainment (PTA) and the cumulative fraction of response (CFR) were calculated by Monte Carlo simulation. PTA and CFR are indicative of treatment success. PK/PD breakpoints of tedizolid and linezolid were 0.5 and 1 mg/L, respectively. Probability of treatment success of tedizolid was very high (>90%) for most staphylococci strains, including MRSA and coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS). Only for methicillin- and linezolid-resistant S. aureus (MLRSA) and linezolid resistant (LR) CoNS strains was the CFR of tedizolid very low. Except for LR, daptomycin-non-susceptible (DNS), and vancomycin-resistant (VRE) E. faecium isolates, tedizolid also provided a high probability of treatment success for enterococci. The probability of treatment success of both antimicrobials for streptococci was always higher than 90%. In conclusion, for empiric treatment, PK/PD analysis has shown that tedizolid would be adequate for most staphylococci, enterococci, and streptococci, even those LR whose linezolid resistance is mediated by the cfr gene.

Cotrimoxazole and clindamycin in skin and soft tissue infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study was to present recent microbiological, experimental, clinical and tolerance data for cotrimoxazole and clindamycin in the specific field of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs).

RECENT FINDINGS

Staphylococcus aureus and streptococci remain the leading cause of SSTIs. Cotrimoxazole is a good anti-Gram-positive agent with preserved activity against methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and streptococci. Although clindamycin has good methicillin-susceptible S. aureus activity, a growing number of resistant MRSA and streptococci have been reported. Strong experimental data support the antitoxin activity of clindamycin, but clinical observations remain scarce. Several recent randomized trials involving cotrimoxazole and/or clindamycin demonstrate the efficacy and tolerance of both drugs. The oral formulation of both drugs may facilitate the implementation of early switch and early discharge protocols in clinical practice.

SUMMARY

Recent publications demonstrate that cotrimoxazole and clindamycin remain reliable and realistic therapeutic approaches for SSTIs.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

In Vitro Activity and Potency of the Novel Oxazolidinone Contezolid (MRX-I) Tested against Gram-Positive Clinical Isolates from the United States and Europe

Contezolid, a new oxazolidinone antibacterial agent currently in development for the treatment of skin and skin structure infections, was susceptibility tested against Gram-positive clinical isolates (n = 1,211). Contezolid demonstrated potent activity against Staphylococcus aureus (MIC_50/90, 0.5/1 mg/liter), coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (MIC_50/90, 0.25/0.5 mg/liter), Enterococcus spp. (MIC_50/90, 0.5/1 mg/liter), and streptococci (MIC_50/90, 1/1 mg/liter). Moreover, methicillin-resistant S. aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium isolates were all inhibited by contezolid at ≤1 mg/liter. These results support the clinical development of contezolid.

<p>Ferritin Degradation by Pneumococcal HtrA, RadA and ClpP Serine Proteases : A Probable Way For Releasing and Acquisition Of Iron</p>

Purpose

Iron is a necessary element for the growth of bacteria; however, there are limited iron sources known for these microorganisms yet. Intracellular iron is stored as ferritin from, which releases iron in a gradual and controlled manner. The present study aimed to characterize ferritin-binding proteins (FBPs) of Streptococcus pneumoniae.

Material and Methods

S. pneumoniae species were cultured in BHI broth containing ferritin (1094 ng/mL) for 4h at 37°C. Ferritin level was measured using ELISA assay. Bacterial proteome was electrophoresed on SDS-PAGE and then transferred on PVDF nitrocellulose membrane. Afterward, the PVDF membranes were incubated with a ferritin solution. Identification of ferritin binding proteins was performed using anti-ferritin monoclonal antibody conjugated with HRP enzyme. Molecular docking was used to assess the interaction between pneumococcal proteases and FBPs applying phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF) as a protease inhibitor.

Results

No FBPs were identified in S. pneumoniae proteome. Moreover, ferritin levels have significantly (p<0.05) decreased following the growth of S. pneumoniae in ferritin-rich BHI medium. Also, molecular docking showed that RadA protease, ClpP hydrolase, and HtrA protease can potentially interact with PMSF protease inhibitors. On the other hand, the addition of the PMSF to the culture of S. pneumoniae prevented the reduction of ferritin, which indicates a potential role of RadA, ClpP, and HtrA proteases in ferritin degradation.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that S. pneumoniae produces no FBPs and also cannot directly use ferritin as an iron source. However, ferritin may be degraded through a protease-mediated mode.

Tedizolid: a service evaluation in a large UK teaching hospital

Tedizolid is a new oxazolidinone antibiotic with little real-life data on use outside of skin and soft tissue infections. There is a paucity of safety evidence in courses greater than 6 days. Our centre uses tedizolid predominantly when linezolid-associated adverse events have occurred. This service evaluation describes our experience to date. We performed a retrospective service evaluation by reviewing case notes, prescription charts, and laboratory system results for each patient prescribed tedizolid at our hospital and recording patient demographics, clinical details, and outcomes. Sixty patients received tedizolid between May 2016 and November 2018. Most were treated for bone or joint infections and had stopped linezolid prior to tedizolid prescription. Mean length of tedizolid therapy was 27 days. Haematological adverse effects were infrequent. Most patients (72%) finished the course and their clinical condition improved during treatment (72%). Adverse events were common, but often not thought to be tedizolid related. Tedizolid appears to be safe in prolonged courses within this context. It may be suitable for longer-term antibiotic therapy within a complex oral and parenteral outpatient antibiotic therapy (COPAT) service. Patients who do not tolerate linezolid can be safely switched to tedizolid if appropriate.

Safety and Tolerability of More than Six Days of Tedizolid Treatment

Tedizolid has demonstrated its efficacy and safety in clinical trials; however, data concerning its tolerability in long-term treatments are scarce. The aim of the study was to assess the indications and to describe the long-term safety profile of tedizolid. A multicentric retrospective study of patients who received tedizolid for more than 6 days was conducted. Adverse events (AEs) were identified from patients' medical records and laboratory data. The World Health Organization causality categories were used to discern AEs that were probably associated with tedizolid. Eighty-one patients, treated with tedizolid 200 mg once daily for a median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of 28 (14 to 59) days, were included; 36 (44.4%) had previously received linezolid. The most common reasons for selecting tedizolid were to avoid linezolid potential toxicities or interactions (53.1%) or due to previous linezolid-related toxicities (27.2%). The most common indications were off-label, including prosthetic joint infections, osteomyelitis, and respiratory infections (77.8%). Overall, 9/81 patients (11.1%) experienced a probably associated AE. Two patients (2.5%) developed gastrointestinal disorders, 1 (1.2%) developed anemia, and 6 developed thrombocytopenia (7.4%) after a median (IQR) duration of treatment of 26.5 (17 to 58.5) days. Four (5%) patients discontinued tedizolid due to AEs. Among 23 patients with chronic renal failure (CRF), the rate of myelotoxicity was 17.4%, and only 8.7% had to stop tedizolid; 20 out of 22 with previous linezolid-associated toxicity had no AE. Long-term tedizolid treatments had good tolerance with rates of gastrointestinal AE and hematological toxicity lower than those reported with linezolid, particularly in patients with CRF and in those with a history of linezolid-associated toxicity.