Clinical safety and tolerability of tedizolid phosphate in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Tedizolid

Tedizolid is an oxazolidinone antibiotic with high potency against Gram-positive bacteria and currently prescribed in bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. The aim of the review was to summarize and critically review the key pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects of tedizolid. Tedizolid displays linear pharmacokinetics with good tissue penetration. In in vitro susceptibility studies, tedizolid exhibits activity against the majority of Gram-positive bacteria (minimal inhibitory concentration [MIC] of ≤ 0.5 mg/L), is four-fold more potent than linezolid, and has the potential to treat pathogens being less susceptible to linezolid. Area under the unbound concentration–time curve (fAUC) related to MIC (fAUC/MIC) was best correlated with efficacy. In neutropenic mice, fAUC/MIC of ~ 50 and ~ 20 induced bacteriostasis in thigh and pulmonary infection models, respectively, at 24 h. The presence of granulocytes augmented its antibacterial effect. Hence, tedizolid is currently not recommended for immunocompromised patients. Clinical investigations with daily doses of 200 mg for 6 days showed non-inferiority to twice-daily dosing of linezolid 600 mg for 10 days in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. In addition to its use in skin and skin-structure infections, the high pulmonary penetration makes it an attractive option for respiratory infections including Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Resistance against tedizolid is rare yet effective antimicrobial surveillance and defining pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets for resistance suppression are needed to guide dosing strategies to suppress resistance development.

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

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

Use of oral tetracyclines in the treatment of adult outpatients with skin and skin structure infections: Focus on doxycycline, minocycline, and omadacycline

Oral tetracyclines have been used in clinical practice for over 60 years. One of the most common indications for use of oral tetracyclines is for treatment of adult outpatients with skin and soft infections (SSTIs), including acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). The 2014 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) skin and soft tissue guideline strongly recommends sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, clindamycin, and tetracyclines as oral treatment options for patients with purulent SSTIs, especially when methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus is of clinical concern. Despite the long‐standing use of tetracyclines, practice patterns indicate that they are often considered after other guideline‐concordant oral options for the treatment of patients with SSTIs. Clinicians may therefore be less familiar with the clinical data associated with use of commercially available tetracycline agents for treatment of patients with SSTI. This review summarizes the literature on the use of oral tetracyclines (ie, doxycycline, minocycline, and omadacycline) for the treatment of adult patients with SSTIs. As part of this review, we describe their common mechanisms of resistance, susceptibility profiles against common SSTI pathogens, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and comparative clinical data.

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.

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.

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.

Prolonged inhibition and incomplete recovery of mitochondrial function in oxazolidinone-treated megakaryoblastic cell lines

Thrombocytopenia is commonly seen in patients receiving linezolid for >14 days. Linezolid is a reversible inhibitor of mitochondrial function in various cell types. This study investigated the inhibitory effects of linezolid and tedizolid, and their potential recovery on (i) CYTox I expression (subunit I of cytochrome c-oxidase; encoded by the mitochondrial genome), (ii) cytochrome c-oxidase activity and (iii) mitochondrial respiration (Seahorse bioanalysis) in two megakaryocytic cell lines [UT-7 WT (human acute megakaryoblastic leukaemia cells) and UT-7 MPL (transduced to express the thrombopoietin receptor)]. Cells were exposed to linezolid (0.5-25 mg/L) or tedizolid (0.1-5 mg/L) for up to 5 days and recovery followed after drug removal. Both oxazolidinones caused concentration- and time-dependent inhibition of CYTox I expression, cytochrome c-oxidase activity and mitochondrial spare capacity. On electron microscopy, mitochondria appeared dilated with a loss of cristae. Globally, tedizolid exerted stronger effects than linezolid. While CYTox I expression recovered completely after 6 days of drug washout, only partial (linezolid) or no (tedizolid) recovery of cytochrome c-oxidase activity, and no rescue of mitochondrial spare capacity (after 3 days) was observed. Thus, and in contrast to previous studies using a variety of cell lines unrelated to megakaryocytic lineages, the inhibitory effects exerted by oxazolidinones on the mitochondrial function of megakaryoblastic cells appear to be particularly protracted. Given the dynamics of platelet production and destruction, these results may explain why oxazolidinone-induced thrombocytopenia is one of the most common side effects in patients exposed to these antibiotics.

Pharmacokinetics of Tedizolid and Pseudoephedrine Administered Alone or in Combination in Healthy Volunteers

Therapeutic doses of tedizolid phosphate, an oxazolidinone antibiotic, lack monoamine oxidase inhibition in vivo, potentially resulting in an improved safety profile versus other oxazolidinones. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-period, 2-sequence, crossover, phase 1 study (NCT01577459) assessed the potential for pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between tedizolid and pseudoephedrine. Eighteen healthy volunteers (age: 18⁻45 years) were block-randomized to 1 of 2 treatment sequences containing 2 treatment periods (tedizolid phosphate or placebo once daily for 4 days; single dose of pseudoephedrine 60 mg on day 5) separated by a 2-day washout. Median time to maximum plasma concentration for tedizolid and pseudoephedrine ranged from 3 to 4 h, regardless of treatment coadministration. Steady-state tedizolid had no effect on the PK of pseudoephedrine; geometric mean ratio and 90% confidence interval remained within the no-effect 0.8 to 1.25 boundaries. The maximum observed concentration of tedizolid decreased by approximately 14% when pseudoephedrine was coadministered; no changes in the area under the plasma concentration-time curve or the minimum observed plasma concentration occurred. All adverse events (AEs) were mild, and there were no serious AEs or study drug discontinuations. No meaningful PK interactions occurred between tedizolid and pseudoephedrine, and tedizolid was well tolerated when administered in conjunction with pseudoephedrine.