Linezolid compared with teicoplanin for the treatment of suspected or proven Gram-positive infections

Oral Antibiotics for Treatment of Gram-Negative Bacteremia in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Propensity Score Weighted Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

We assessed the safety and efficacy of oral antibiotic step-down therapy for uncomplicated gram-negative blood stream infections in solid-organ transplant recipients.

METHODS

We identified all solid-organ transplant recipients within the Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women's Hospital systems from 2016 to 2021 with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia involving an organism susceptible to an acceptably bioavailable oral antibiotic agent. Using inverse probability of treatment-weighted models based on propensity scores adjusting for potential clinical confounders, we compared outcomes of those transitioned to oral antibiotics with those who continued intravenous (IV) therapy for the duration of treatment. Primary endpoints were mortality, bacteremia recurrence, and reinitiation of IV antibiotics. Secondary endpoints included length of stay, Clostridioides difficile infection, treatment-associated complications, and tunneled central venous catheter placement.

RESULTS

A total of 120 bacteremia events from 107 patients met inclusion criteria in the oral group and 42 events from 40 patients in the IV group. There were no significant differences in mortality, bacteremia recurrence, or reinitiation of IV antibiotics between groups. Patients transitioned to oral antibiotics had an average length of stay that was 1.97 days shorter (95% confidence interval [CI], -.39 to 3.56 days; P = .005). Odds of developing C. difficile and other treatment-associated complications were 8.4 times higher (95% CI, 1.5-46.6; P = .015) and 6.4 times higher (95% CI, 1.9-20.9; P = .002), respectively, in the IV group. Fifty-five percent of patients in the IV group required tunneled catheter placement. There was no difference in treatment duration between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral step-down therapy was effective and associated with fewer treatment-related adverse events.

Using antibiotics wisely

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review will describe role of shorter antibiotic therapies, early switch from intravenous to oral therapy, and artificial intelligence in infectious diseases.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is evidence that shorter courses of antibiotics are noninferior to standard durations of therapy. This has been demonstrated with Enterobacterales bacteremia that can be treated with 7 days of therapy, community acquired pneumonia with 3 days and ventilator associated pneumonia with just 7 days of antibiotic therapy. The conversion from intravenous to oral therapy in treating bacteremia, endocarditis and bone and joint infections is safe and effective and reduces line complications and costs. Also, for clean surgical procedures only one dose of antibiotic is needed, but it should be the most effective antibiotic which is cefazolin. This means avoiding clindamycin, removing penicillin allergies where possible for improved outcomes. Finally, the role of artificial intelligence to incorporate into using antibiotics wisely is rapidly emerging but is still in early stages.

SUMMARY

In using antibiotics wisely, targeting such as durations of therapy and conversion from intravenous antibiotic therapy to oral are low hanging fruit. The future of artificial intelligence could automate a lot of this work and is exciting but needs to be proven.

VIDEO ABSTRACT

http://links.lww.com/COID/A50.

Choosing patients over placebos: oral transitional therapy vs. IV-only therapy for bacteraemia and infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND

The belief that antibiotics must be administered intravenously (IV) to treat bacteraemia and endocarditis has its origins 70 years ago and has engrained itself in the psyche of the medical community and the public at large. This has led to hesitancy in adopting evidence-based strategies utilizing oral transitional therapy for the treatment of these infections. We aim to reframe the narrative around this debate, focusing on patient safety over vestigial psychology.

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review summarizes the current state of the literature regarding the use of oral transitional therapy for the treatment of bacteraemia and infective endocarditis, focusing on studies comparing it to the traditional, IV-only approach.

SOURCES

Relevant studies and abstracts from PubMed reviewed in April 2023.

CONTENT

Treating bacteraemia with oral transitional therapy has been studied in 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), totalling 625 patients, as well as numerous large, retrospective cohorts, including 3 published in the last 5 years alone, totalling 4763 patients. We identified 3 large, retrospective cohort studies; one quasi-experimental, pre-post study, and 3 RCTs of patients with endocarditis, totalling 748 patients in the retrospective cohorts and 815 patients in prospective, controlled studies. In all these studies, no worse outcomes were observed in the oral transitional therapy arm as compared with IV-only therapy. The main difference has consistently been longer durations of inpatient hospitalization and increased risk of catheter-related adverse events like venous thrombosis and line-associated blood stream infections in the IV-only groups.

IMPLICATIONS

There are ample data showing that choosing oral therapy reduces hospital stay and has fewer adverse events for patients than IV-only therapy, all with similar or better outcomes. In selected patients, choosing IV-only therapy may serve more as an anxiolytic "placebo" for the patient and provider rather than a necessity for treating the actual infection.

Effectiveness and Safety of Linezolid Versus Vancomycin, Teicoplanin, or Daptomycin against Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Vancomycin (VCM) and daptomycin (DAP) are standard therapies for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia, despite concerns regarding clinical utility and growing resistance. Linezolid (LZD) affords superior tissue penetration to VCM or DAP and has been successfully used as salvage therapy for persistent MRSA bacteremia, indicating its utility as a first-choice drug against MRSA bacteremia. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the effectiveness and safety of LZD with VCM, teicoplanin (TEIC), or DAP in patients with MRSA bacteremia. We evaluated all-cause mortality as the primary effectiveness outcome, clinical and microbiological cure, hospital length of stay, recurrence, and 90-day readmission rates as secondary effectiveness outcomes, and drug-related adverse effects as primary safety outcomes. We identified 5328 patients across 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 pooled analysis of 5 RCTs, 1 subgroup analysis (1 RCT), and 5 case-control and cohort studies (CSs). Primary and secondary effectiveness outcomes were comparable between patients treated with LZD versus VCM, TEIC, or DAP in RCT-based studies and CSs. There was no difference in adverse event incidence between LZD and comparators. These findings suggest that LZD could be a potential first-line drug against MRSA bacteremia as well as VCM or DAP.

Can the Future of ID Escape the Inertial Dogma of Its Past? The Exemplars of Shorter Is Better and Oral Is the New IV

Like all fields of medicine, Infectious Diseases is rife with dogma that underpins much clinical practice. In this study, we discuss 2 specific examples of historical practice that have been overturned recently by numerous prospective studies: traditional durations of antimicrobial therapy and the necessity of intravenous (IV)-only therapy for specific infectious syndromes. These dogmas are based on uncontrolled case series from >50 years ago, amplified by the opinions of eminent experts. In contrast, more than 120 modern, randomized controlled trials have established that shorter durations of therapy are equally effective for many infections. Furthermore, 21 concordant randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that oral antibiotic therapy is at least as effective as IV-only therapy for osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and endocarditis. Nevertheless, practitioners in many clinical settings remain refractory to adopting these changes. It is time for Infectious Diseases to move beyond its history of eminent opinion-based medicine and truly into the era of evidenced-based medicine.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Diagnosis and management of infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria: guideline endorsed by the Italian Society of Infection and Tropical Diseases (SIMIT), the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA), the Italian Group for Antimicrobial Stewardship (GISA), the Italian Association of Clinical Microbiologists (AMCLI) and the Italian Society of Microbiology (SIM)

Management of patients with infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach to achieve successful clinical outcomes. The aim of this paper is to provide recommendations for the diagnosis and optimal management of these infections, with a focus on targeted antibiotic therapy. The document was produced by a panel of experts nominated by the five endorsing Italian societies, namely the Italian Association of Clinical Microbiologists (AMCLI), the Italian Group for Antimicrobial Stewardship (GISA), the Italian Society of Microbiology (SIM), the Italian Society of Infectious and Tropical Diseases (SIMIT) and the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA). Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes (PICO) questions about microbiological diagnosis, pharmacological strategies and targeted antibiotic therapy were addressed for the following pathogens: carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales; carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa; carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii; and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. A systematic review of the literature published from January 2011 to November 2020 was guided by the PICO strategy. As data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were expected to be limited, observational studies were also reviewed. The certainty of evidence was classified using the GRADE approach. Recommendations were classified as strong or conditional. Detailed recommendations were formulated for each pathogen. The majority of available RCTs have serious risk of bias, and many observational studies have several limitations, including small sample size, retrospective design and presence of confounders. Thus, some recommendations are based on low or very-low certainty of evidence. Importantly, these recommendations should be continually updated to reflect emerging evidence from clinical studies and real-world experience.

Oral Is the New IV. Challenging Decades of Blood and Bone Infection Dogma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine if controlled, prospective clinical data validate the long-standing belief that intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy is required for the full duration of treatment for 3 invasive bacterial infections: osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and infective endocarditis.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of published, prospective, controlled trials that compared IV-only to oral stepdown regimens in the treatment of these diseases. Using the PubMed database, we identified 7 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of osteomyelitis, 9 of bacteremia, 1 including both osteomyelitis and bacteremia, and 3 of endocarditis, as well as one quasi-experimental endocarditis study. Study results were synthesized via forest plots and funnel charts (for risk of study bias), using RevMan 5.4.1 and Meta-Essentials freeware, respectively.

RESULTS

The 21 studies demonstrated either no difference in clinical efficacy, or superiority of oral versus IV-only antimicrobial therapy, including for mortality; in no study was IV-only treatment superior in efficacy. The frequency of catheter-related adverse events and duration of inpatient hospitalization were both greater in IV-only groups.

DISCUSSION

Numerous prospective, controlled investigations demonstrate that oral antibiotics are at least as effective, safer, and lead to shorter hospitalizations than IV-only therapy; no contrary data were identified. Treatment guidelines should be modified to indicate that oral therapy is appropriate for reasonably selected patients with osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and endocarditis.

Development of Amphiphilic Coumarin Derivatives as Membrane-Active Antimicrobial Agents with Potent In Vivo Efficacy against Gram-Positive Pathogenic Bacteria

Increases in drug-resistant pathogens are becoming a serious detriment to human health. To combat pathogen infections, a new series of amphiphilic coumarin derivatives were designed and synthesized as antimicrobial agents with membrane-targeting action. We herein report a lead compound, 25, that displayed potent antibacterial activity against Gram-positive bacteria, including MRSA. Compound 25 exhibited weak hemolytic activity and low toxicity to mammalian cells and can kill Gram-positive bacteria quickly (within 0.5 h) by directly disrupting the bacterial cell membranes. Additionally, compound 25 demonstrated excellent efficacy in a murine corneal infection caused by Staphylococcus aureus. These results suggest that 25 has great potential to be a potent antimicrobial agent for treating drug-resistant Gram-positive bacterial infections.

Early Oral Switch to Linezolid for Low-risk Patients With Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections: A Propensity-matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Oral switch to linezolid is a promising alternative to standard parenteral therapy (SPT) in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of all adult cases of SAB between 2013 and 2017 in a Spanish university hospital. We compared the efficacy, safety, and length of hospital stay of patients receiving SPT and those where SPT was switched to oral linezolid between days 3 and 9 of treatment until completion. We excluded complicated SAB and osteoarticular infections. A k-nearest neighbor algorithm was used for propensity score matching with a 2:1 ratio.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, we included 45 patients from the linezolid group and 90 patients from the SPT group. Leading SAB sources were catheter related (49.6%), unknown origin (20.0%), and skin and soft tissue (17.0%). We observed no difference in 90-day relapse between the linezolid group and the SPT group (2.2% vs 4.4% respectively; P = .87). No statistically significant difference was observed in 30-day all-cause mortality between the linezolid group and the SPT group (2.2% vs 13.3%; P = .08). The median length of hospital stay after onset was 8 days in the linezolid group and 19 days in the SPT group (P < .01). No drug-related events leading to discontinuation were noted in the linezolid group.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of SAB in selected low-risk patients with an oral switch to linezolid between days 3 and 9 of treatment until completion yielded similar clinical outcomes as SPT, allowing earlier discharge from the hospital.

A Narrative Review of Early Oral Stepdown Therapy for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: Yay or Nay?

Historically, intravenous (IV) antibiotics have been the cornerstone of treatment for uncomplicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB). However, IV antibiotics are expensive, increase the rates of hospital readmission, and can be associated with catheter-related complications. As a result, the potential role of oral antibiotics in the treatment of uncomplicated SAB has become a subject of interest. This narrative review article aims to summarize key arguments for and against the use of oral antibiotics to complete treatment of uncomplicated SAB and evaluates the available evidence for specific oral regimens. We conclude that evidence suggests that oral step-down therapy can be an alternative for select patients who meet the criteria for uncomplicated SAB and will comply with medical treatment and outpatient follow-up. Of the currently studied regimens discussed in this article, linezolid has the most support, followed by fluoroquinolone plus rifampin.

Evaluation of a Paradigm Shift From Intravenous Antibiotics to Oral Step-Down Therapy for the Treatment of Infective Endocarditis: A Narrative Review

IMPORTANCE

The requirement of prolonged intravenous antibiotic courses to treat infective endocarditis (IE) is a time-honored dogma of medicine. However, numerous antibiotics are now available that achieve adequate levels in the blood after oral administration to kill bacteria. Moreover, prolonged intravenous antibiotic regimens are associated with high rates of adverse events. Accordingly, recent studies of oral step-down antibiotic treatment have stimulated a reevaluation of the need for intravenous-only therapy for IE.

OBSERVATIONS

PubMed was reviewed in October 2019, with an update in February 2020, to determine whether evidence supports the notion that oral step-down antibiotic therapy for IE is associated with inferior outcomes compared with intravenous-only therapy. The search identified 21 observational studies evaluating the effectiveness of oral antibiotics for treating IE, typically after an initial course of intravenous therapy; none found such oral step-down therapy to be inferior to intravenous-only therapy. Multiple studies described an improved clinical cure rate and an improved mortality rate among patients treated with oral step-down vs intravenous-only antibiotic therapy. Three randomized clinical trials also demonstrated that oral step-down antibiotic therapy is at least as effective as intravenous-only therapy in right-sided, left-sided, or prosthetic valve IE. In the largest trial, at 3.5 years of follow-up, patients randomized to receive oral step-down antibiotic therapy had a significantly improved cure rate and mortality rate compared with those who received intravenous-only therapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This review found ample data demonstrating the therapeutic effectiveness of oral step-down vs intravenous-only antibiotic therapy for IE, and no contrary data were identified. The use of highly orally bioavailable antibiotics as step-down therapy for IE, after clearing bacteremia and achieving clinical stability with intravenous regimens, should be incorporated into clinical practice.

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.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of tedizolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections caused by MRSA

BACKGROUND

Tedizolid, the active moiety of tedizolid phosphate, is approved in the United States, the European Union, Canada and a number of other countries for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) caused by certain susceptible bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluates the comparative effectiveness of tedizolid and other antibacterials indicated for the treatment of ABSSSI caused by MRSA.

METHODS

Systematic review of 10 databases was undertaken to inform an NMA to estimate the relative effectiveness of tedizolid and established monotherapy comparators (ceftaroline, daptomycin, linezolid, teicoplanin, tigecycline, vancomycin) for treating MRSA-associated ABSSSI. Randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with ABSSSI or complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by suspected/documented MRSA were eligible for inclusion. Networks were developed based on similarity of study design, patient characteristics, outcome measures and available data. Outcomes of interest included clinical response at end of therapy (EOT), post-therapy evaluation (PTE) or test-of-cure assessment and treatment discontinuations resulting from adverse events (AEs). Bayesian NMA was conducted for each outcome using fixed-effects and random effects models.

RESULTS

Literature searches identified 3,618 records; 15 trials met the inclusion criteria and were considered suitable for NMA comparison. In fixed-effects models, tedizolid had higher odds of clinical response at EOT (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; credible interval, 1.0, 3.0) and PTE than vancomycin (OR, 1.6; credible interval, 1.1, 2.5). No differences in odds of clinical response at EOT or PTE were observed between tedizolid and other comparators. There was no evidence of a difference among treatments for discontinuation due to AEs. Results from random effects and fixed-effects models were generally consistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Tedizolid was superior to vancomycin for clinical response at EOT and PTE. There was no evidence of a difference between tedizolid and other comparators and no evidence of a difference between tedizolid and all comparators when evaluating discontinuation due to AEs. These findings suggest that tedizolid provides an alternative option for the management of serious skin infections caused by suspected or documented MRSA. This study is subject to the limitations inherent in all NMAs, and the results should be interpreted accordingly.

Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society

It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia. The panel's recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of HAP and VAP are based upon evidence derived from topic-specific systematic literature reviews.

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.

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.

Using daptomycin in hospitalised patients with cSSTI caused by Staphylococcus aureus has an impact on costs

BACKGROUND

The aim was to assess the cost impact of daptomycin compared to vancomycin treatment in patients hospitalised for complicated skin and soft-tissue infection (cSSTI) with suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in the UK.

METHODS

A decision model was developed to estimate the costs associated with cSSTI treatment. Data on efficacy, treatment duration and early discharge from published clinical trials were used, with data gaps on standard clinical practice being filled by means of clinician interviews.

RESULTS

Total health-care costs per patient were GBP 6,214 and GBP 6,491 for daptomycin and vancomycin, respectively. A sensitivity analysis suggested that modifying the parameters within a reasonable range does not impact on the conclusion that the higher cost of daptomycin is likely to be offset by lower costs of monitoring and hospitalisation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that daptomycin not only provides an alternative treatment for multiple resistant infections, but may also reduce National Health Service costs.

Consensus statement on the management of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia in Asia

Nosocomial pneumonia (NP; encompassing hospital-acquired, health care-associated and ventilator-associated pneumonia) is one of the most common nosocomial infections and is associated with a mortality rate of 18.7%-40.8% in Asian countries. The burden of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in Asia is high, and approximately 13% of NP cases in Asia are caused by this pathogen. Evidence regarding optimal management of MRSA NP continues to evolve and is complicated by the fact that a significant proportion of cases are likely to be caused by isolates with reduced susceptibility to the main therapeutic agent, vancomycin. The Asian Consensus Taskforce on MRSA Nosocomial Pneumonia has developed this statement to provide consensus points on diagnosis, antimicrobial treatment and prevention strategies for MRSA NP in the Asian context, based on our review of Asian data, previous international guidelines and recent scientific evidence.

Role of linezolid in the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections

Staphylococcus aureus is the most common cause of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs). Antibiotic choices for these infections continue to evolve. History has seen penicillin progress to antistaphylococcal penicillins and cephalosporins, but these drugs are now giving way to drugs that are effective against methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). While vancomycin has been the gold standard to treat MRSA infections, newer therapeutic options have been developed over the last 5 years. These include quinupristin-dalfopristin, daptomycin, tigecycline and linezolid, which is the focus for this review. Linezolid is efficacious in the treatment of cSSTIs (including diabetic foot infections) caused by Gram-positive organisms (including MRSA), with a well-defined safety profile and straightforward dosing. It is also approved for nosocomial pneumonia, community-acquired pneumonia and uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections. Linezolid has an oral and parenteral formulation, which are equivalent. The oral formulation has the potential to offer economic benefits as compared with other therapies. Currently, there are only a few new antibiotics in development with MRSA activity. The proper use of all antibiotics, including these newer agents, is increasingly important if we are to slow the evolution of microbial resistance.

Invasive Staphylococcus aureus infections in diabetes mellitus

Staphylococcus aureus, the most virulent of the many staphylococcal species, has remained a major cause of morbidity and mortality despite the availability of numerous effective anti-staphylococcal antibiotics. S. aureus causes disease through both toxin-mediated and non-toxin-mediated mechanisms. This organism is responsible for both healthcare associated and community-based infections ranging from relatively minor skin and soft tissue infections to severe life threatening systemic infections. Patients with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of invasive S. aureus infections. This article focuses on the spectrum of invasive S. aureus infections and discusses the clinical features, investigations and management of these infections in patients with diabetes mellitus.

Linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for nosocomial pneumonia: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an important cause of nosocomial pneumonia. Compared with glycopeptide antibiotics, linezolid achieves higher lung epithelial lining fluid concentrations, which may have an advantage in treating nosocomial pneumonia patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. Data were obtained from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. Randomised controlled studies involving the use of linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin in nosocomial pneumonia patients were included in the study. Twelve linezolid trials were included. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia regarding the clinical cure rate [relative risk (RR) = 1.08, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 1.00-1.17, p = 0.06]. Linezolid was associated with better microbiological eradication rate in nosocomial pneumonia patients compared with glycopeptide antibiotics (RR = 1.16, 95 % CI = 1.03-1.31, p = 0.01). There were no differences in the all-cause mortality (RR = 0.95, 95 % CI = 0.83-1.09, p = 0.46) between the two groups. However, the risks of rash (RR = 0.41, 95 % CI = 0.24-0.71, p = 0.001) and renal dysfunction (RR = 0.41, 95 % CI = 0.27-0.64, p < 0.0001) were higher with glycopeptide antibiotics. Although linezolid was more effective in eradicating microbiology than glycopeptide antibiotics for nosocomial pneumonia patients, it did not demonstrate superiority in clinical cure. The incidences of renal dysfunction and rash are higher in the glycopeptide antibiotics group.

The efficacy and safety of linezolid and glycopeptides in the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections

To assess the effectiveness and safety of linezolid in comparison with glycopeptides (vancomycin and teicoplanin) for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections, we conducted a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials. A thorough search of Pubmed and other databases was performed. Thirteen trials on 3863 clinically assessed patients were included. Linezolid was slightly more effective than glycopeptides in the intent-to-treat population (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01–1.10), was more effective in clinically assessed patients (OR 95% CI: 1.38, 1.17–1.64) and in all microbiologically assessed patients (OR 95% CI: 1.38, 1.15–1.65). Linezolid was associated with better treatment in skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) patients (OR 95% CI: 1.61, 1.22–2.12), but not in bacteraemia (OR 95% CI: 1.24, 0.78–1.97) or pneumonia (OR 95% CI: 1.25, 0.97–1.60) patients. No difference of mortality between linezolid and glycopeptides was seen in the pooled trials (OR 95% CI: 0.98, 0.83–1.15). While linezolid was associated with more haematological (OR 95% CI: 2.23, 1.07–4.65) and gastrointestinal events (OR 95% CI: 2.34, 1.53–3.59), a significantly fewer events of skin adverse effects (OR 95% CI: 0.27, 0.16–0.46) and nephrotoxicity (OR 95% CI: 0.45, 0.28–0.72) were recorded in linezolid. Based on the analysis of the pooled data of randomized control trials, linezolid should be a better choice for treatment of patients with S. aureus infections, especially in SSTIs patients than glycopeptides. However, when physicians choose to use linezolid, risk of haematological and gastrointestinal events should be taken into account according to the characteristics of the specific patient populations.

Clinical update on linezolid in the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections

Gram-positive pathogens are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in both community and health care settings. Glycopeptides have traditionally been the antibiotics of choice for multiresistant Gram-positive pathogens but there are problems with their use, including the emergence of glycopeptide-resistant strains, tissue penetration, and achieving and monitoring adequate serum levels. Newer antibiotics such as linezolid, a synthetic oxazolidinone, are available for the treatment of resistant Gram-positive bacteria. Linezolid is active against a wide range of Gram-positive bacteria and has been generally available for the treatment of Gram-positive infections since 2000. There are potential problems with linezolid use, including its bacteriostatic action and the relatively high incidence of reported adverse effects, particularly with long-term use. Long-term use may also be complicated by the development of resistance. However, linezolid has been shown to be clinically useful in the treatment of several serious infections where traditionally bacteriocidal agents have been required and many of its adverse effects are reversible on cessation. It has also been shown to be a cost-effective treatment option in several studies, with its high oral bioavailability allowing an early change from intravenous to oral formulations with consequent earlier patient discharge and lower inpatient costs.

A comparative evaluation of adverse platelet outcomes among Veterans' Affairs patients receiving linezolid or vancomycin

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to compare the incidences of severe thrombocytopenia, critical thrombocytopenia and a relative decline in platelets from baseline (≥50% decline) between patients receiving linezolid and those receiving vancomycin. The secondary objective was to assess the relationship between vancomycin trough concentration and adverse platelet outcomes.

METHODS

A matched cohort study was performed at the Upstate New York Veterans' Affairs Healthcare Network from January 2005 until February 2008. Eligibility criteria were: (i) receipt of linezolid or vancomycin therapy for ≥48 h; (ii) initiation of therapy as an inpatient; and (iii) baseline platelets available for evaluation. Patients who received linezolid were matched 1:1 to patients who received vancomycin. Cumulative incidences and times to event for (i) platelet count ≤50,000 cells/mm(3), (ii) platelet count ≤20,000 cells/mm(3) and (iii) ≥50% decline in platelets from baseline were evaluated. Multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The study included 502 patients (251 matched pairs). The occurrences of platelet counts ≤50,000 cells/mm(3) and ≤20,000 cells/mm(3) did not differ significantly between linezolid and vancomycin patients. A ≥50% decline in platelets from baseline was observed in 78 (31.1%) patients receiving vancomycin and 43 (17.1%) patients receiving linezolid (risk ratio 0.55; 95% CI 0.40-0.77). A clear exposure-response relationship was observed between vancomycin trough concentration and ≥50% decline in platelets from baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of thrombocytopenia was low and did not differ significantly among vancomycin and linezolid patients.

Patients' views and experience of intravenous and oral antimicrobial therapy: room for change

Little is known about patients' views or preferences about the route of administration of antimicrobials. In this study semi-structured interviews were carried out to assess patients' perceptions of an infection that required IV antimicrobial therapy in hospital, their preference for intravenous, IV followed by oral and discharge on oral therapy or home IV therapy. Interviews were transcribed and the content analysed. Twelve patients were interviewed while in hospital or by telephone after discharge. Patients' information about their infection was incomplete and many expressed the view that they would like more information. Many patients expressed a preference for oral therapy over IV therapy although this was dependent on it being of equal efficacy. Contrary views were related to personal difficulty with tablets. Patients varied in their acceptance of home IV therapy and expressed concern about adequate support but the majority expressed a preference for being discharged on oral therapy once they were well enough.

Linezolid: safety and efficacy in special populations

Linezolid has been in general use in the UK since 2000. Although toxicity, particularly haematological and neurological, has been an issue, linezolid has proved to be an effective alternative to glycopeptides in the treatment of Gram-positive infections. Since its original licence for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections and pneumonia, there have been reports of its successful use in the treatment of bone and joint infections, endocarditis, and other difficult-to-treat infections.

Update on the appropriate use of linezolid in clinical practice

Multi-antibiotic resistant Gram-positive cocci, which include Staphylococcus aureus, the coagulase-negative staphylococcal group, Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium, and other streptococci, represent emerging pathogens especially in the setting of the immunocompromised, hospitalized patients, in particular when surgery, invasive procedures, or prosthetic implants are of concern, patients are admitted in intensive care units, or underlying chronic disorders and immunodeficiency are of concern, and broad-spectrum antibiotics or immunosuppressive drugs are widely administered. During the recent years, the phenomenon of multiresistant Gram-positive cocci is spreading to the community, where the retrieval of such microorganism is progressively increasing. The spectrum of available antimicrobial compounds for an effective management of these relevant infections is significantly impaired in selection and clinical efficacy by the emerging and spread of methicillin-resistant and more recently glycopeptide-resistant Gram-positive microbial strains. The first oxazolidinone derivative linezolid, together with the recently licensed quinupristin–dalfopristin, daptomycin, and tigecycline, followed by a number of glycopeptides, fluoroquinolones, and other experimental compounds on the pipeline, represent an effective response to the great majority of these concerns, due to their innovative mechanisms of action, their maintained or enhanced activity against multiresistant pathogens, their effective pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties, their frequent possibility of synergistic activity with other compounds effective against Gram-positive pathogens, and a diffuse potential for a safe and easy administration, also when compromised patients are of concern. The main problems related to the epidemiological and clinical features of multiresistant Gram-positive infection, the potential clinical indications of all recently available compounds compared with the standard of care of treatment of resistant Gram-positive infections, and updated data on efficacy and tolerability of linezolid as the golden standard compound for vancomycin-resistant Gram-positive cocci in multiple clinical situations, are outlined and updated on the ground of an extensive review of all the available, recent evidences coming from the international literature.

Future challenges and treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia with emphasis on MRSA

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is an urgent medical problem due to its growing frequency and its poor associated outcome. As healthcare delivery increasingly involves invasive procedures and implantable devices, the number of patients at risk for SAB and its complications is likely to grow. Compounding this problem is the growing prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and the dwindling efficacy of vancomycin, long the treatment of choice for this pathogen. Despite the recent availability of several new antibiotics for S. aureus, new strategies for treatment and prevention are required for this serious, common cause of human infection.

Efficacy and safety of linezolid in liver transplant patients

Bacterial infections are the main cause of death within the first year after liver transplantation, and the increased incidence of multidrug-resistant gram-positive pathogens has created a major challenge in the treatment of these patients. Linezolid, the first US Food & Drug Administration-approved oxazolidinone, offers a valuable novel treatment option for serious gram-positive infections. Linezolid is relatively non-toxic but prolonged treatment with linezolid was associated with thrombocytopenia. Here we report on the experience of linezolid treatment in adult liver transplant patients, who are at an increased risk for thrombocytopenia because of hypersplenism. From November 2003 until December 2009, we evaluated the clinical course of 46 liver transplant patients (27 male/19 female) in our surgical intensive care unit. For proven or probable gram-positive infection, all patients received linezolid 600 mg intravenously every 12 h. On clinical improvement, treatment was changed to oral linezolid 600 mg twice daily. Treatment duration was 11 ± 7 days. Treatment indications were pneumonia (n = 8), blood stream infection (n = 30), and surgical site/abdominal infection (n = 3). Clinical cure was achieved in 43 out of 46 patients. During the course of treatment, no cases of severe thrombocytopenia occurred and a statistically significant platelet count increase was seen from day 1 (110 ± 73/nL) to day 7 (165 ± 116/nL) and day 14 (180 ± 140/nL). We did not observe any further adverse events, especially no severe neurological complications (e.g., serotonin syndrome) or signs of lactate acidosis. Two patients died from uncontrolled vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium sepsis with septic shock and one due to uncontrolled methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. These deaths were considered to be unrelated to linezolid treatment, and linezolid was regarded as the optimal treatment choice in these patients. A subgroup analysis of patients treated for >14 days revealed no statistically significant differences when compared with patients on shorter treatment. In particular, no cases of thrombocytopenia occurred during longer treatment. In conclusion, linezolid is a safe and effective treatment for adult liver transplant patients with gram-positive infections.

Complicated skin and soft tissue infection

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are common, and complicated SSTIs (cSSTIs) are the more extreme end of this clinical spectrum, encompassing a range of clinical presentations such as deep-seated infection, a requirement for surgical intervention, the presence of systemic signs of sepsis, the presence of complicating co-morbidities, accompanying neutropenia, accompanying ischaemia, tissue necrosis, burns and bites. Staphylococcus aureus is the commonest cause of SSTI across all continents, although its epidemiology in terms of causative strains and antibiotic susceptibility can no longer be predicted with accuracy. The epidemiology of community-acquired and healthcare-acquired strains is constantly shifting and this presents challenges in the choice of empirical antibiotic therapy. Toxin production, particularly with Panton-Valentine leucocidin, may complicate the presentation still further. Polymicrobial infection with Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms and anaerobes may occur in infections approximating the rectum or genital tract and in diabetic foot infections and burns. Successful management of cSSTI involves prompt recognition, timely surgical debridement or drainage, resuscitation if required and appropriate antibiotic therapy. The mainstays of treatment are the penicillins, cephalosporins, clindamycin and co-trimoxazole. β-Lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations are indicated for polymicrobial infection. A range of new agents for the treatment of methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections have compared favourably with the glycopeptides and some have distinct pharmacokinetic advantages. These include linezolid, daptomycin and tigecycline. The latter and fluoroquinolones with enhanced anti-Gram-positive activity such as moxifloxacin are better suited for polymicrobial infection.

Clinical Experience with Linezolid at a Large Academic Medical Center: A Case Series and Review of the Literature

Purpose

The objectives of this study were to evaluate current patterns of use, microbiologic cure rates, and hematologic toxicities, including identification of risk factors, associated with linezolid utilization at our institution.

Methods

Utilization, clinical, microbiological, and toxicity data were collected prospectively over an 8-month period (August 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007). Binary logistic and multivariate stepwise regression analyses were performed to identify potential risk factors for linezolid-associated thrombocytopenia and anemia.

Results

A total of 116 linezolid courses (102 patients) were identified with a mean duration of therapy of 12.3 days. Appropriate infectious disease service approval and consults were found in 87.9% and 62.1% of the cases, respectively. Bloodstream, urinary tract, and respiratory tract infections accounted for 29%, 21%, and 16% of clinical indications, respectively. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and coagulase-negative staphylococci accounted for 43%, 24%, and 7% of clinical isolates, respectively. Overall, the microbiologic cure rate among evaluable patients was 83.8%. Development of thrombocytopenia was found in approximately 30% of linezolid-treated patients. Risk factors for linezolid-associated thrombocytopenia included female gender (OR 5.66, P = .002), serum creatinine (SCr) ≥ 2 mg/dL (OR 4.48, P = .009), intensive care unit admission (OR 3.06, P = .038), and duration of therapy ≥ 28 days (OR 3.76, P = .049).

Conclusion

Utilization patterns may suggest strategies for conserving linezolid, including improved compliance with current approval policies and clinical pathway development. Linezolid microbiological cure rates were similar to those found in the primary literature. Linezolid-associated thrombocytopenia was common and risk factors were identified. Further well-designed prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings. Hosp Pharm-2010;45(12):916-926

Linezolid vs glycopeptide antibiotics for the treatment of suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an important cause of nosocomial pneumonia. Societal guidelines suggest linezolid may be the preferred treatment of MRSA nosocomial pneumonia. We investigated the efficacy of linezolid compared with glycopeptide antibiotics (vancomycin or teicoplanin) for nosocomial pneumonia.

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of English language, randomized, controlled trials comparing linezolid to glycopeptide antibiotics for suspected MRSA pneumonia in subjects > 12 years of age. A highly sensitive search of PubMed MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases identified relevant studies.

RESULTS

Eight trials encompassing 1,641 subjects met entry criteria. Linezolid was not superior to glycopeptide antibiotics for end points of clinical success (relative risk [RR] linezolid vs glycopeptide, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.11; P = .28), microbiologic success (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.97-1.31; P = .12), or mortality (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.69-1.18; P = .47). In addition, clinical success in the subgroup of subjects with MRSA-positive respiratory tract culture (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.97-1.57; P = .09) was not significantly different from those without MRSA (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.09; P = .48), P for interaction, 0.07. The risk for adverse events was not different between the two antibiotic classes (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.07; P = .48).

CONCLUSION

Randomized controlled trials do not support superiority of linezolid over glycopeptide antibiotics for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. We recommend that decisions between linezolid or glycopeptide antibiotics for empirical or MRSA-directed therapy of nosocomial pneumonia depend on local availability, antibiotic resistance patterns, preferred routes of delivery, and cost, rather than presumed differences in efficacy.

Comparative effectiveness of antibiotics for the treatment of MRSA complicated skin and soft tissue infections

OBJECTIVE

With a growing number of studies and comparators in MRSA skin infections, a unified framework for comparing treatments is needed for health technology assessment (HTA). The objective was to systematically assess the success rates of common antimicrobial agents for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) caused by MRSA.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify published clinical trials in which dalbavancin, daptomycin, linezolid, telavancin, teicoplanin, tigecycline, and vancomycin were used to treat cSSTIs. Pooled efficacy estimates were generated from clinical and microbiological determinations of success for the MRSA-subgroups in cSSTI clinical trials using a Bayesian meta-analytic approach. Success rates for each antibiotic were reported with 95% Bayesian confidence intervals (called credible intervals [CrI]). In sensitivity analyses the impact of different model parameters and article quality were investigated.

RESULTS

Out of 36 identified studies, 14 studies on six antibiotics with 28 treatment arms (n = 1840) were included in the analysis. No MRSA data in cSSTI were found for teicoplanin. The pooled success rate and CrI(95%) for each agent was: vancomycin (74.7%; CrI(95%): 64.1%-83.5%), dalbavancin (87.7%; CrI(95%): 74.6%-95.4%), linezolid (84.4%; CrI(95%): 76.6%-90.6%), telavancin (83.5%; CrI(95%): 73.6%-90.8%), daptomycin (78.1%; CrI(95%): 54.6%-93.2%) and tigecycline (70.4%; CrI(95%): 48.0%-87.6%). Comparisons between antibiotics suggested differences versus vancomycin for linezolid (+9.7%; CrI(95%): 4.4%-15.8%), dalbavancin (+13.1%; CrI(95%): 1.0%-23.8%), and telavancin (+8.8%; CrI(95%): 1.5-16.7%). The finding of lower vancomycin efficacy in MRSA cSSTI did not change in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis suggest higher success rates for linezolid and the new glycopeptides (dalbavancin and telavancin) in MRSA-confirmed cSSTIs. The uncertainty margins reflect the study limitations including number of cases and indirect nature of the comparisons. This example of Bayesian meta-analysis for MRSA cSSTI provides a potential framework for comparisons that is useful for HTA and formulary decision-making.

A European survey of antibiotic management of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection: current clinical opinion and practice

Although the epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) varies across Europe, healthcare-associated MRSA infections are common in many countries. Despite several national guidelines, the approach to treatment of MRSA infections varies across the continent, and there are multiple areas of management uncertainty for which there is little clinical evidence to guide practice. A faculty, convened to explore some of these areas, devised a survey that was used to compare the perspectives of infection specialists from across Europe on the management of MRSA infections with those of the faculty specialists. The survey instrument, a web-based questionnaire, was sent to 3840 registered delegates of the 19th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, held in April 2009. Of the 501 (13%) respondents to the survey, 84% were infection/microbiology specialists and 80% were from Europe. This article reports the survey results from European respondents, and shows a broad range of opinion and practice on a variety of issues pertaining to the management of minor and serious MRSA infections, such as pneumonia, bacteraemia, and skin and soft tissue infections. The issues include changing epidemiology, when and when not to treat, choice of treatment, and duration and route of treatment. The survey identified areas where practice can be improved and where further research is needed, and also identified areas of pan-European consensus of opinion that could be applied to European guidelines for the management of MRSA infection.

Linezolid: a review of safety and tolerability

Linezolid has demonstrated activity against antibiotic-susceptible and antibiotic-resistant aerobic Gram-positive cocci. The availability of intravenous and oral formulations, with near 100% bioavailability of the latter, is hoped to facilitate the management of multiply drug-resistant Gram-positive infections. Linezolid was approved for clinical use in the United States in April 2000 and has subsequently been approved in other countries for the management of community-acquired and nosocomial pneumonia, complicated and uncomplicated skin and soft-tissue infections, and infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci, including cases with concurrent bacteremia. Additional studies have demonstrated potential use in febrile cancer patients with neutropenia, and case reports have documented some efficacy in the management of infective endocarditis, tuberculosis, nocardiosis, and in anaerobic infections. Given the potential for significantly increased use of linezolid, a thorough review and update of its tolerability and safety profile is warranted.