In Vitro Activity of Tedizolid in Comparison with Other Oral and Intravenous Agents Against a Collection of Community-Acquired Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (2014–2015) in the United States

Activity of Tedizolid and Comparator Agents Against Gram-positive Isolates Causing Skin and Skin Structure Infections in Pediatric Patients in United States Hospitals (2015-2019)

BACKGROUND

Tedizolid was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration to treat acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in adults in 2014, and in 2020, United States Food and Drug Administration expanded the approval of tedizolid to treat pediatric patients 12 years of age and older. This study assessed the activity of tedizolid and comparator agents against clinical surveillance isolates collected from pediatric patients with skin and skin structure infection in the United States.

METHODS

A total of 2747 gram-positive organisms (1 per patient) were collected in 2015 to 2019 from pediatric (≤17 years old) patients with skin and skin structure infections. The isolates were collected from 33 US medical centers and susceptibility tested against tedizolid and comparators by reference broth microdilution methods. Susceptibility results for main pathogens were stratified by patient age: ≤1 years old (851 isolates), 2 to 5 years old (623), 6 to 12 years old (754) and 13 to 17 years old (519).

RESULTS

Staphylococcus aureus (n = 2163) was the main pathogen recovered from all age groups, followed by β-hemolytic streptococci (n = 460). Tedizolid inhibited all S. aureus , including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) isolates (41.0%), regardless of the age group. MRSA rates varied by age group; MRSA was highest among ≤1 years old (45.0%) and lowest in the 13 to 17 years old (32.7%) groups. Linezolid, daptomycin and vancomycin also displayed susceptibility rates of 100% against S. aureus isolates. Clindamycin (81.3%-98.5%), tetracycline (91.6%-97.1%) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (97.0%-100%) susceptibility rates varied among age groups and methicillin resistance profiles. Overall, tedizolid, linezolid, daptomycin and vancomycin inhibited all gram-positive pathogens in this collection.

CONCLUSIONS

Tedizolid was very active against a large collection of gram-positive pathogens causing skin and skin structure infection in pediatric patients, including MRSA isolates.

Antibacterial activity of recently approved antibiotics against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections are considered an important public health problem, and treatment options are limited. Accordingly, in this meta-analysis, we analyzed published studies to survey in vitro activity of recently approved antibiotics against MRSA isolates.

Methods

We searched electronic databases; PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify relevant studies (until November 30, 2020) that have focused on the in vitro activity of telavancin, dalbavancin, oritavancin, and tedizolid against MRSA isolates. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA software (version 14.0).

Results

Thirty-eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall in vitro activity of tedizolid on 12,204 MRSA isolates was 0.250 and 0.5 µg/mL for MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀, (minimum inhibitory concentration at which 50% and 90% of isolates were inhibited, respectively), respectively. The overall antibacterial activity of dalbavancin on 28539 MRSA isolates was 0.060 and 0.120 µg/mL for MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀, respectively. The overall antibacterial activity of oritavancin on 420 MRSA isolates was 0.045 and 0.120 µg/mL for MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀, respectively. The overall antibacterial activity of telavancin on 7353 MRSA isolates was 0.032 and 0.060 µg/mL for MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀, respectively. The pooled prevalence of tedizolid, telavancin, and dalbavancin susceptibility was 100% (95% CI: 100–100).

Conclusion

Telavancin, dalbavancin, oritavancin, and tedizolid had potent in vitro activity against MRSA isolates. The low MICs and high susceptibility rates of these antibiotics recommend a hopeful direction to introduce useful antibiotics in treating MRSA infections in the future.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12941-022-00529-z.

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.

Prevalence and molecular epidemiology of ceftaroline non-susceptible methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates, first clinical report from Iran

BACKGROUND

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is one of the major pathogens in Iran with a high prevalence and a high level of antibiotic resistance. Ceftaroline is a fifth generation cephalosporin binding and inhibiting penicillin binding protein (PBP2a).

METHODS

In the present study, 228 clinical MRSA isolates were collected from four cities of Iran and their susceptibility to ceftaroline was evaluated by E-test and the disk diffusion method.

RESULTS

Our results showed a high susceptibility rate (97.3%) to ceftaroline in MRSA strains from Iran. Six isolates were found to be ceftaroline non-susceptible (CPT-NS) with Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ≥2 µg/mL. All CPT-NS isolates were isolated from blood and tracheal aspirate and belonged to SCCmec type III as well as agr type I and were all susceptible to vancomycin. Out of six isolates, three, two and one belonged to spa type t030, t4864, and t969, respectively. Vancomycin, quinupristin/dalfopristin, linezolid, chloramphenicol, and tigecycline were the most active agents against CPT-NS isolates.

CONCLUSION

Due to the broad-spectrum activity and low toxicity of ceftaroline as well as the increased rate of vancomycin resistance among MRSA strains in recent years, ceftaroline can be considered as a novel approach to treat MRSA-induced infections.

Tedizolid-Rifampicin Combination Prevents Rifampicin-Resistance on in vitro Model of Staphylococcus aureus Mature Biofilm

Staphylococcus aureus infections associated with implanted medical devices are difficult to treat and require long-lasting antibiotic therapies, especially when device removal is not possible or easy such as in the case of joint prostheses. Biofilm formation is a major cause of treatment failure and infection recurrence. This study aimed to test, for the first time, the in vitro combination of tedizolid plus rifampicin on methicillin-sensitive (MSSA ATCC 6538) and methicillin-resistant (MRSA ATCC 43300) S. aureus mature biofilm. Here, we demonstrated that the combination of tedizolid with rifampicin significantly disaggregated pre-formed biofilm of both strains, reduced their metabolic activity and exerted bactericidal activity at clinically meaningful concentrations. Notably, tedizolid was able to completely prevent the emergence of resistance to rifampicin. Moreover these effects were similar to those obtained with daptomycin plus rifampicin, a well-known and widely used combination. Preliminary results on some MRSA clinical isolates confirmed the efficacy of this combination in reducing biofilm biomass and preventing rifampicin resistance onset. Further in vivo studies are needed to confirm the validity of this promising therapeutic option that can be useful against biofilm-associated S. aureus infections.

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.

Molecular characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clinical strains from the endotracheal tubes of patients with nosocomial pneumonia

Background

Among all cases of nosocomial pneumonia, Staphylococcus aureus is the second most prevalent pathogen (17.8%). In Europe, 29.9% of the isolates are oxacillin-resistant. The changing epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial infections and the decreasing susceptibility to first-line antibiotics leave clinicians with few therapeutic options. The objective of our study was to determine the antimicrobial susceptibility, the associated molecular mechanisms of resistance and the epidemiological relatedness of MRSA strains isolated from the endotracheal tubes (ETT) of intubated critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) with nosocomial pneumonia caused by Staphylococcus aureus.

Methods

The antimicrobial susceptibility to vancomycin, linezolid, ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, erythromycin, chloramphenicol, fusidic acid, gentamicin, quinupristin-dalfopristin, rifampicin, sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, and tetracycline were measured. Resistance mechanisms were then analyzed by polymerase chain reaction and sequencing. Molecular epidemiology was carried out by multi-locus sequence typing.

Results

S. aureus isolates were resistant to ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, gentamicin, tetracycline, clindamycin, and fusidic acid. The most frequent mutations in quinolone-resistant S. aureus strains were S84L in the gyrA gene, V511A in the gyrB gene, S144P in the grlA gene, and K401R/E in the grlB gene. Strains resistant to erythromycin carried the ermC, ermA, and msrA genes; the same ermC and ermA genes were detected in strains resistant to clindamycin. The aac(6′)-aph(2″) gene was related to gentamicin resistance, while resistance to tetracycline was related to tetK (efflux pump). The fusB gene was detected in the strain resistant to fusidic acid. The most frequent sequence types were ST22, ST8, and ST217, which were distributed in four clonal complexes (CC5, CC22, CC45, and CC59).

Conclusions

High levels of resistance to second-line antimicrobials threatens the treatment of nosocomial respiratory infections due to methicillin-resistant S. aureus with decreased susceptibility to linezolid and vancomycin. The wide genotypic diversity found reinforces the central role of ICU infection control in preventing nosocomial transmission.

Tedizolid Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of tedizolid, compared to linezolid, in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI). PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO (Elton B. Stephens Co.), Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline and Embase databases were accessed until 18 July 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of tedizolid with linezolid for adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The outcomes included the clinical response, microbiological response, and risk of adverse events (AEs). A total of four RCTs involving 2056 adult patients with ABSSSI were enrolled. The early clinical response rate was 79.6% and 80.5% for patients receiving tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. The pooled analysis showed that tedizolid had a non-inferior early clinical response rate to linezolid (odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.77-1.19, I² = 0%). The early response rate was similar between tedizolid and linezolid among patients with cellulitis/erysipelas (75.1% vs. 77.1%; OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.64-1.27, I² = 25%), major cutaneous abscess (85.1% vs. 86.8%; OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.42-2.03, I² = 37%) and wound infection (85.9% vs. 82.6%; OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.66-2.51, I² = 45%). For methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus patients, tedizolid had a favorable microbiological response rate of 95.2% which was comparable to linezolid (94%) (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.49-2.90, I² = 0%). In addition to the similar risk of treatment-emergent AEs (a serious event, the discontinuation of the study drug due to AEs and mortality between tedizolid and linezolid), tedizolid was associated with a lower risk of nausea, vomiting and abnormal neutrophil count than linezolid. In conclusion, once-daily tedizolid (200 mg for six days) compared to linezolid (600 mg twice-daily for 10 days) was non-inferior in efficacy in the treatment of ABSSSI. Besides, tedizolid was generally as well tolerated as linezolid, and had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs and bone marrow suppression than linezolid.

In vitro activity of Exebacase (CF-301) against clinical Staphylococcus aureus surveillance isolates from the United States, Europe, and Latin America, 2015-2017

Lysins are direct lytic agents which act through enzymatic cell-wall-hydrolysis and represent a potential new class of antimicrobial agents in development to treat antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Exebacase (CF-301) is a first-in-class lysin now in clinical development for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) bacteremia and infective endocarditis (IE) when used in addition to conventional antibiotics. Exebacase and comparator antibiotics were tested by broth microdilution against a set of 535 clinical MSSA and MRSA isolates collected from 2015 to 2017 throughout the United States, Europe and South America. All S. aureus isolates were inhibited by ≤1 mg/L exebacase (MIC_50/90, 0.5/1 mg/L) with a range of 0.25-1 mg/L. No difference in susceptibility was observed between the MSSA and MRSA isolates. Exebacase was uniformly and equivalently active against all recent clinical MSSA and MRSA surveillance isolates from a broad survey across 3 continents.