Safety of Tedizolid as Suppressive Antimicrobial Therapy for Patients With Complex Implant-Associated Bone and Joint Infection due to Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Positive Pathogens: Results From the TediSAT Cohort Study

Marginal bone resection and immediate internal fixation in multidrug resistant chronic septic nonunions of lower limb long bones: a case series

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a combined treatment approach integrating extensive debridement, immediate internal fixation, and the Masquelet technique for the management of infected nonunion of long bones in the lower limbs caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) bacteria.

METHODS

This retrospective case series was conducted at the Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran, Iran, a tertiary-level academic referral centre. The study documented consecutive cases of patients presenting with infected nonunion of the tibia or femur, with a positive culture for MDR or XDR bacteria, treated between January 2019 and December 2022. Inclusion criteria were adults with a confirmed diagnosis of infected nonunion due to MDR or XDR bacteria, with exclusion criteria including patients with unrelated infections or allergies to the components of the treatment regimen. The primary outcomes measured were infection resolution and bone healing.

RESULTS

The study cohort comprised 16 patients, predominantly male (87.5%) with an average age of 38.5 years. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was identified as the causative agent in 31.25% of the infections. Patients were followed for a period ranging from 12 to 26 months. The treatment protocol was uniformly applied across all cases. Successful bone union was observed in the majority of patients within 140 to 240 days following grafting. However, there were two instances where amputation was necessitated due to the failure to eradicate the infection. Complications arose in three cases during the follow-up period: two required re-debridement due to a recurrence of the infection, and one was subjected to bone transport owing to persistent nonunion. Notably, all cases that either failed or encountered complications were smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

In this integrated approach, high rates of infection resolution and bone healing were achieved, suggesting this method as a viable option for these complex cases.

Severe Optic Neuropathy Induced by Very Prolonged Tedizolid as Suppressive Therapy: Description of a Case Report and Implication for Better Assessment

The long-term tolerability of linezolid is low because of mitochondrial toxicity, whereas tedizolid may represent a better option for suppressive therapy. We report a first presumed case of tedizolid-associated optic neuropathy after a very prolonged (18-month) intake and believe that screening for optic neuropathy should be considered for patients undergoing tedizolid suppression.

Safety and tolerability of tedizolid as oral treatment for bone and joint infections

Bone and joint infections (BJIs) are common infections increasingly managed with oral therapy. However, there are limited safe oral options for many Gram-positive pathogens. In animal studies and short-term human use, tedizolid lacks the hematologic and neurologic toxicity of the other available oxazolidinone, linezolid. However, there are limited prospective safety data. We conducted an open-label, non-comparative trial of oral tedizolid for BJI treatment. Primary outcomes were safety and cure rate. Eligible patients had a BJI caused by documented or suspected Gram-positive pathogen, required 4-12 weeks of therapy, and did not have myelosuppression or peripheral/optic neuropathy. Subjects underwent weekly evaluation for cytopenias and neuropathy. We enrolled 44 subjects; five were lost to follow-up. Two subjects did not complete planned treatment because of rash (n = 1) and urgent surgery (n = 1). Of 37 patients with evaluable outcomes, 17 (46%) had hardware-associated infection, 13 (35%) had osteomyelitis, 5 (14%) had prosthetic joint infection, and 2 (5%) had other BJIs. Median (mean, range) treatment duration was 12 (10.1, 4-12) weeks. There were no cases of cytopenias or peripheral or optic neuropathy. Treatment cure occurred in 13 (35%); 19 (51%) required antibiotic continuation after 12 weeks of tedizolid related to retained hardware at the BJI site, and failure occurred in four (11%), two unlikely, one possibly, and one probably due to tedizolid. We found that oral tedizolid was well tolerated for prolonged BJI treatment without significant toxicity. Clinical failure rate was similar to that of other published BJI investigations. (This study has been registered at Clinicaltrials.gov under identifier NCT03009045.) IMPORTANCE Bone and joint infections are common infections with limited effective and safe oral options for Gram-positive infections. The largest prospective clinical trial of tedizolid therapy for bone and joint infections enrolled 44 patients and tested each in person weekly with detailed safety monitoring including tests for leukopenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, peripheral neuropathy, and optic neuropathy for up to 12 weeks. Findings demonstrated tedizolid was generally well tolerated and there were no incident cases of cytopenias or neuropathy. Cure rates were similar to that in other bone and joint infection studies. In summary, oral tedizolid appears to be a well-tolerated oral option for Gram-positive bone and joint infections.

Real-World Use of Tedizolid Phosphate for 28 Days or More: A Case Series Describing Tolerability and Clinical Success

Tedizolid has activity against Gram-positive pathogens as well as Mycobacterium spp and Nocardia spp. Real-world evidence supporting long-term tolerability and clinical success of tedizolid is lacking. Prolonged tedizolid therapy (median, 188 days; interquartile range, 62-493 days) appeared to be well tolerated in 37 patients (8.1% experienced adverse effect leading to discontinuation). Clinical success was 81.3% in those evaluated.

Cost of off-label antibiotic therapy for bone and joint infections: a 6-year prospective monocentric observational cohort study in a referral centre for management of complex osteo-articular infections

Introduction: Costs related to bone and joint infection (BJI) management are increasing worldwide, particularly due to the growing use of off-label antibiotics that are expensive treatments (ETs), in conjunction with increasing incidence of multi-drug-resistant pathogens. The aim of this study was to evaluate the whole costs related to these treatments during the patient route, including those attributed to the rehabilitation centre (RC) stay in one regional referral centre in France. The total annual cost of ETs for managing complex BJIs in France was then estimated.

Material and methods: A prospective monocentric observational study was conducted from 2014 to 2019 in a referral centre for BJI management (CRIOAc – Centre de Référence des Infections OstéoArticulaires complexes). Costs related to expensive treatments (“old” ETs, i.e. ceftaroline, ertapenem, daptomycin, colistin, tigecycline, and linezolid and “new” ETs, defined as those used since 2017, including ceftobiprole, ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, tedizolid, and dalbavancin) were prospectively recorded. In all cases, the use of these ETs was validated during multidisciplinary meetings.

Results: Of the 3219 patients treated, 1682 (52.3 %) received at least one ET, and 21.5 % of patients who received ET were managed in RCs. The overall cost of ETs remained high but stable (EUR 1 033 610 in 2014; EUR 1 129 862 in 2019), despite the increase of patients treated by ETs (from 182 in 2014 to 512 in 2019) and in the cumulative days of treatment (9739 to 16 191 d).

Daptomycin was the most prescribed molecule (46.2 % of patients in 2014 and 56.8 % in 2019, with 53.8 % overall), but its cost has decreased since this molecule was genericized in 2018; the same trend was observed for linezolid. Thus, costs for old ETs decreased overall, from EUR 1 033 610 in 2014 to EUR 604 997 in 2019, but global costs remained stable due to new ET utilization accounting for 46.5 % of overall costs in 2019. Tedizolid, used as suppressive antimicrobial therapy, represented 77.5 % of total new ET costs. In our centre, dalbavancin was never used.

The cost paid by RCs for ETs and the duration of ET remained stable overall between 2016 and 2019.

Conclusions: A high consumption of off-label ET is required to treat patients with BJIs in a CRIOAc, and the consequence is a high cost of antimicrobial therapy for these patients, estimated to be almost EUR 10 million in France annually. Costs associated with ET utilization remained stable over the years. On the one hand, the introduction of the generic drugs of daptomycin and linezolid has significantly decreased the share of old ETs, but, on the other hand, the need for new ETs to treat infections associated with more resistant pathogens has not led to decrease in the overall costs. A drastic price reduction of generic drugs is essential to limit the costs associated with more complex BJIs.