Linezolid: safety and efficacy in special populations

WCK 4034: A promising oxazolidinone for treating gram positive infections

Increased resistance to gram positive infections have highlighted the limitations of currently available drug treatments including penicillins, macrolides and glycopeptides. As an alternative to address these challenges; Linezolid, the first antibiotic from oxazolidinone class, have shown the promising activities against such infections, although associated toxicological issues limiting the use of linezolid for prolonged treatments. In order to circumvent disadvantages allied with the marketed drugs, we herein reporting the synthesis of WCK 4034, an oxazolidinone antibiotic through our structure activity relationship (SAR) program. Through this exercise, WCK 4034, has shown competitive MIC values against Methicillin Sensitive S. aureus (MSSA, Sta-001), Methicillin Resistant S. aureus (MRSA, Sta-032), S. pneumoniae ATCC 49619 and H. influenza ATCC 35054 species as like linezolid. Although with an additional advantage; WCK 4034 has been found superior during dog PK studies as compare to Linezolid. With the preliminary studies in our hand, we herein assuming these improved pharmacokinetic values would be helpful. Moreover, WCK 4034 has successfully completed pre-clinical studies and ready to enter the clinical space, and paved the way for in house development of other oxazolidinone NCEs.

From 'OPAT' to 'COpAT': implications of the OVIVA study for ambulatory management of bone and joint infection

Bone and joint infection contributes significantly to clinical activity within outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) services. The OVIVA (oral versus intravenous antibiotics for bone and joint infection) randomized study has challenged the practice of prolonged intravenous therapy, because non-inferiority of oral antibiotic therapy was demonstrated, thereby implying that early transition to oral therapy is an appropriate alternative to prolonged intravenous therapy. We examine the caveats to the study and discuss the implications for OPAT practice, highlighting the importance of careful oral antibiotic selection with attention to bioavailability, bone penetration, drug interactions, compliance and toxicity monitoring. We emphasize that ambulatory antibiotic therapy (whether intravenous or oral) in this patient group requires expert multidisciplinary management, monitoring and follow-up, and ideally should be undertaken within existing OPAT or, more accurately, complex outpatient antibiotic therapy (COpAT) services.

A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.

A Case of Linezolid Toxicity Presenting as a Sepsis Mimic

Linezolid is an efficacious and well tolerated antimicrobial but can have serious adverse effects including myelo-suppression, serotonin syndrome, neuropathy, hypoglycemia, liver dysfunction, and lactic acidosis. The side effects are generally duration dependent; linezolid use is not recommended for more than 28 days. Case. A 59-year-old female presented with malaise, loss of appetite, and altered mentation. She had multiple medical comorbidities and required long-term anticoagulation with warfarin for venous thromboembolism. She had multiple medication allergies. Prior to admission, she was on linezolid for cellulitis of foot due to Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). On physical exam, she was drowsy and required endotracheal intubation for airway protection. Initial laboratory parameters showed lactic acidosis, thrombocytopenia, supra-therapeutic coagulation profile, low blood glucose, and transaminitis. Her altered mentation was due to hypoglycemia. The interaction with warfarin led to altered coagulation profile. She developed shock and vasopressors were initiated. Given her presentation, she was managed as severe sepsis. There were no active infectious foci attributing to decline of her clinical status. Linezolid was discontinued and she was managed with intravenous polymyxin B, aztreonam, and vancomycin. Her hemodynamic status improved within one day. She was extubated on Day 5 of her presentation. Her laboratory parameters showed gradual improvement over 12 days after discontinuation of linezolid. Retrospective evaluation revealed linezolid toxicity as possible cause of presentation. Linezolid toxicity can present as sepsis mimic and should be considered as a differential diagnosis while managing sepsis with other antimicrobial agents.

Variable Linezolid Exposure in Intensive Care Unit Patients-Possible Role of Drug-Drug Interactions

BACKGROUND

Standard doses of linezolid may not be suitable for all patient groups. Intensive care unit (ICU) patients in particular may be at risk of inadequate concentrations. This study investigated variability of drug exposure and its potential sources in this population.

METHODS

Plasma concentrations of linezolid were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography in a convenience sample of 20 ICU patients treated with intravenous linezolid 600 mg twice daily. Ultrafiltration applying physiological conditions (pH 7.4/37°C) was used to determine the unbound fraction. Individual pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were estimated by population PK modeling. As measures of exposure to linezolid, area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and trough concentrations (Cmin) were calculated and compared with published therapeutic ranges (AUC 200-400 mg*h/L, Cmin 2-10 mg/L). Coadministered inhibitors or inducers of cytochrome P450 and/or P-glycoprotein were noted.

RESULTS

Data from 18 patients were included into the PK evaluation. Drug exposure was highly variable (median, range: AUC 185, 48-618 mg*h/L, calculated Cmin 2.92, 0.0062-18.9 mg/L), and only a minority of patients had values within the target ranges (6 and 7, respectively). AUC and Cmin were linearly correlated (R = 0.98), and classification of patients (underexposed/within therapeutic range/overexposed) according to AUC or Cmin was concordant in 15 cases. Coadministration of inhibitors was associated with a trend to higher drug exposure, whereas 3 patients treated with levothyroxine showed exceedingly low drug exposure (AUC ∼60 mg*h/L, Cmin <0.4 mg/L). The median unbound fraction in all 20 patients was 90.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug exposure after standard doses of linezolid is highly variable and difficult to predict in ICU patients, and therapeutic drug monitoring seems advisable. PK drug-drug interactions might partly be responsible and should be further investigated; protein binding appears to be stable and irrelevant.

Activity of Tedizolid in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis Experimental Foreign Body-Associated Osteomyelitis

We developed a rat model of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) foreign body-associated osteomyelitis and used it to compare tedizolid alone and in combination with rifampin against rifampin alone, vancomycin plus rifampin, and vancomycin alone. A clinical strain of MRSE was inoculated into the proximal tibia, and a stainless steel wire with a precolonized MRSE biofilm was implanted. Following a 1-week infection period, 92 rats received either no treatment (n = 17) or 14 days of intraperitoneal tedizolid (n = 15), tedizolid plus rifampin (n = 15), rifampin (n = 15), vancomycin plus rifampin (n = 15), or vancomycin (n = 15). Quantitative bone and wire cultures were performed after treatment completion and also 1 week after infection in a separate group of five rats. The median quantity of staphylococci in bone after the 1-week infection period was 4.89 log₁₀ CFU/g bone (interquartile range, 3.83 to 5.33 log₁₀ CFU/g bone); staphylococci were recovered from all associated wires. A median quantity of staphylococci of 3.70 log₁₀ CFU/g bone was detected in bones of untreated control rats after 3 weeks. Quantities of staphylococci in bones of all treatment groups except the group receiving vancomycin alone (2.78 log₁₀ CFU/g) were significantly lower than those for untreated controls, with no staphylococci being detected in the groups receiving rifampin monotherapy, tedizolid-plus-rifampin combination therapy, and vancomycin-plus-rifampin combination therapy. Quantities of staphylococci on wires from all treatment groups that included rifampin were significantly lower than those for untreated controls. No resistance to rifampin, tedizolid, or vancomycin was detected. Tedizolid combined with rifampin was active in a rat model of MRSE foreign body-associated osteomyelitis.

Critical role of tedizolid in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

Tedizolid phosphate has high activity against the Gram-positive microorganisms mainly involved in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, such as strains of Staphylococcus aureus (including methicillin-resistant S. aureus strains and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus strains), Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus agalactiae, the Streptococcus anginosus group, and Enterococcus faecalis, including those with some mechanism of resistance limiting the use of linezolid. The area under the curve for time 0-24 hours/minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) pharmacodynamic ratio has shown the best correlation with the efficacy of tedizolid, versus the time above MIC ratio and the maximum drug concentration/minimum inhibitory concentration ratio. Administration of this antibiotic for 6 days has shown its noninferiority versus administration of linezolid for 10 days in patients with skin and skin structure infections enrolled in two Phase III studies (ESTABLISH-1 and ESTABLISH-2). Tedizolid's more favorable safety profile and dosage regimen, which allow once-daily administration, versus linezolid, position it as a good therapeutic alternative. However, whether or not the greater economic cost associated with this antibiotic is offset by its shorter treatment duration and possibility of oral administration in routine clinical practice has yet to be clarified.

Activity of Tedizolid in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Experimental Foreign Body-Associated Osteomyelitis

We compared tedizolid alone and tedizolid with rifampin to rifampin and vancomycin plus rifampin in a rat model of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) foreign body-associated osteomyelitis. The study strain was a prosthetic joint infection-associated isolate. Steady-state pharmacokinetics for intraperitoneal administration of tedizolid, vancomycin, and rifampin were determined in uninfected rats. MRSA was inoculated into the proximal tibia, and a wire was implanted. Four weeks later, the rats were treated intraperitoneally for 21 days with tedizolid (n = 14), tedizolid plus rifampin (n = 11), rifampin (n = 16), or vancomycin plus rifampin (n = 13). Seventeen rats received no treatment. After treatment, quantitative bone cultures were performed. Blood was obtained for determination of drug trough concentrations in the tedizolid and tedizolid plus rifampin groups. The mean peak plasma concentration and mean area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 h for tedizolid were 12 μg/ml and 60 μg · h/ml, respectively. The bacterial loads in all treatment groups were significantly lower than those in the control group; those in the tedizolid- plus rifampin-treated animals were not significantly different from those in the vancomycin- plus rifampin-treated animals. The range of mean plasma trough concentrations in the tedizolid group was 0.44 to 0.73 μg/ml. Although neither tedizolid nor vancomycin resistance was detected in isolates recovered from bones, rifampin resistance was detected in 10 animals (63%) in the rifampin group, 8 animals (73%) in the tedizolid plus rifampin group, and a single animal (8%) in the vancomycin plus rifampin group. Tedizolid alone or tedizolid combined with rifampin was active in a rat model of MRSA foreign body-associated osteomyelitis. The emergence of rifampin resistance was noted in animals receiving tedizolid plus rifampin.

Incidence, risk factors and prediction of post-operative acute kidney injury following cardiac surgery for active infective endocarditis: an observational study

Introduction

Cardiac surgery is frequently needed in patients with infective endocarditis (IE). Acute kidney injury (AKI) often complicates IE and is associated with poor outcomes. The purpose of the study was to determine the risk factors for post-operative AKI in patients operated on for IE.

Methods

A retrospective, non-interventional study of prospectively collected data (2000–2010) included patients with IE and cardiac surgery with cardio-pulmonary bypass. The primary outcome was post-operative AKI, defined as the development of AKI or progression of AKI based on the acute kidney injury network (AKIN) definition. We used ensemble machine learning (“Super Learning”) to develop a predictor of AKI based on potential risk factors, and evaluated its performance using V-fold cross validation. We identified clinically important predictors among a set of risk factors using Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation.

Results

202 patients were included, of which 120 (59%) experienced a post-operative AKI. 65 (32.2%) patients presented an AKI before surgery while 91 (45%) presented a progression of AKI in the post-operative period. 20 patients (9.9%) required a renal replacement therapy during the post-operative ICU stay and 30 (14.8%) died during their hospital stay. The following variables were found to be significantly associated with renal function impairment, after adjustment for other risk factors: multiple surgery (OR: 4.16, 95% CI: 2.98-5.80, p<0.001), pre-operative anemia (OR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.34-2.66, p<0.001), transfusion requirement during surgery (OR: 2.38, 95% CI: 1.55-3.63, p<0.001), and the use of vancomycin (OR: 2.63, 95% CI: 2.07-3.34, p<0.001), aminoglycosides (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.13-1.83, p=0.004) or contrast iodine (OR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.37-2.12, p<0.001). Post-operative but not pre-operative AKI was associated with hospital mortality.

Conclusions

Post-operative AKI following cardiopulmonary bypass for IE results from additive hits to the kidney. We identified several potentially modifiable risk factors such as treatment with vancomycin or aminoglycosides or pre-operative anemia.

Efficacy and safety of linezolid in treating gram-positive bacterial infection in the elderly: a retrospective study

Linezolid is commonly used for the treatment of drug-resistant Gram-positive bacterial infection. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linezolid in treating Gram-positive bacterial infection in the elderly from January 2010 to December 2012. Total 40 elderly patients (>60 years old) with Gram-positive bacterial infection were treated with linezolid and their demographic and clinical data were collected and analyzed. Among the 40 patients, 31 patients (77.5 %) were cured. Linezolid caused little adverse effects on liver and renal function. The main adverse effect was thrombocytopenia and its incidence was significantly associated with baseline platelet count and the duration of treatment (P < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that the baseline platelet count <200 × 10(6)/mL, but not the age, the sex, the length of hospital stay, baseline levels of hemoglobin, alanine aminotransferase, or creatinine clearance rate was significantly associated with linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia. In conclusion, linezolid is effective to cure Gram-positive bacterial infection in the elderly and causes little adverse effects on liver and renal function. Timely monitoring of baseline platelet count may be helpful to guide the use of linezolid to avoid the occurrence of thrombocytopenia.