Current role of oxazolidinones and lipoglycopeptides in skin and soft tissue infections

Use of oxazolidinones (linezolid or tedizolid) for the treatment of breast infections. A case series from a tertiary referral hospital

OBJECTIVES

Mastitis is mainly caused by Gram-positive bacteria and usually involves treatment with beta-lactam antibiotics and clindamycin. Oxazolidinones show good results in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) due to its pharmacokinetic characteristics. We aimed to describe clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients who received oxazolidinones for the treatment of SSTIs of the mammary tissue.

METHODS

Retrospective single-centre study of patients with a diagnosis of breast infection who received treatment with oxazolidinones as initial or salvage therapy between September 2016 and November 2022. Patients were identified through the pharmacy database. The primary outcome was clinical cure.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients received oxazolidinones: 27 received linezolid and 2 tedizolid. Median age was 41 years (IQR 31.0-56.5) and 28 patients were female. Ten patients (35%) had a history of breast cancer, while three (10%) had an immunosuppressive condition. Microbiological isolation was obtained in 24 individuals (83%). Predominant isolations were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (8, 28%) and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (7, 24%). Twenty-four patients (83%) received oxazolidinones as a salvage therapy, with a median duration of 14 days (IQR 10-17). Clinical cure was achieved in 24 patients (83%), while 4 relapsed after a median of 15 days (IQR 4-34). One was lost to follow-up. Three patients (10%) were taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and one of them concurrently received linezolid for 4 days with no adverse events recorded. Cytopenia during treatment was observed in 2/12 individuals. Oxazolidinones allowed hospital discharge in 11/13 hospitalized patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Oxazolidinones could be considered as an alternative for treating breast infections.

The Novel Oxazolidinone TBI-223 Is Effective in Three Preclinical Mouse Models of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infection

Staphylococcus aureus is an important cause of various infections in humans, including bacteremia, skin and soft tissue infections, and infections associated with implanted medical devices. The emergence of hospital- and community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) underscores the urgent and unmet need to develop novel, safe, and effective antibiotics against these multidrug-resistant clinical isolates. Oxazolidinone antibiotics such as linezolid have excellent oral bioavailability and provide coverage against MRSA infections. However, their widespread and long-term use is often limited by adverse effects, especially myelosuppression. TBI-223 is a novel oxazolidinone with potentially reduced myelosuppression, compared to linezolid, but its efficacy against MRSA infections is unknown. Therefore, the preclinical efficacy of TBI-223 (80 and 160 mg/kg twice daily) was compared with that of linezolid (40 and 80 mg/kg twice daily) and sham treatment in mouse models of MRSA bacteremia, skin wound infection, and orthopedic-implant-associated infection. The dosage was selected based on mouse pharmacokinetic analysis of both linezolid and TBI-223, as well as measurement of the MICs. In all three models, TBI-223 and linezolid had comparable dose-dependent efficacies in reducing bacterial burden and disease severity, compared with sham-treated control mice. Taken together, these findings indicate that TBI-223 represents a novel oxazolidinone antibiotic that may provide an additional option against MRSA infections. Future studies in larger animal models and clinical trials are warranted to translate these findings to humans. IMPORTANCE Staphylococcus aureus is the predominant cause of bloodstream, skin, and bone infections in humans. Resistance to commonly used antibiotics is a growing concern, making it more difficult to treat staphylococcal infections. Use of the oxazolidinone antibiotic linezolid against resistant strains is hindered by high rates of adverse reactions during prolonged therapy. Here, a new oxazolidinone named TBI-223 was tested against S. aureus in three mouse models of infection, i.e., bloodstream infection, skin infection, and bone infection. We found that TBI-223 was as effective as linezolid in these three models. Previous data suggest that TBI-223 has a better safety profile than linezolid. Taken together, these findings indicate that this new agent may provide an additional option against MRSA infections. Future studies in larger animal models and clinical trials are warranted to translate these findings to humans.

New drugs for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin and soft tissue infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Staphylococcus aureus is a pathogen incriminated in skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs), with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) becoming the predominant cause and representing a significant burden to the healthcare system. The last updated Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines concerning MRSA infections and SSTIs management were published in 2011 and 2014, respectively. The UK updated guidelines for MRSA infection treatment were published in 2021. Older treatment options may be associated with toxicity and require frequent dosing. There is a paucity of recent reviews on the armamentarium of new agents for MRSA SSTIs treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since 2005, several new antibiotics received a fast-track approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for SSTI treatment. These drugs include delafloxacin, omadacycline, tedizolid, ceftaroline, dalbavancin, oritavancin and telavancin. In this manuscript, we will review the data that led to these new drugs approval and discuss their advantages and disadvantages in MRSA SSTIs management.

SUMMARY

MRSA is a major cause of SSTIs. Several novel therapies covering MRSA were FDA-approved for SSTIs. However, the current IDSA guidelines for MRSA infection and SSTIs as well as the recently published UK guidelines on MRSA treatment only consider these drugs as alternative choices or do not mention them at all.

The role of dalbavancin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs)

Introduction: Acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSI) are a subgroup of skin and soft tissue infections and are a common source of morbidity in both the community and the hospital setting. The most common cause of ABSSSI is Staphylococcus aureus, which also includes methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), together with beta-hemolytic streptococci, enterococci, and Gram-negative bacteria. Since the emergence of MRSA, the management of ABSSSI has become more challenging. Novel therapies alternative to teicoplanin and vancomycin, intravenous agents commonly used against MRSA and employed in hospitalized patients, and to other antibiotics which are used as standard of care for MRSA infection, with a higher efficacy and safer profile are worth evaluating.Areas covered: This review presents and discusses current evidence on the use of dalbavancin in the treatment of ABSSSI.Expert opinion: Dalbavancin represents a promising therapeutic choice in patients with ABSSSI, thanks to its favorable pharmacokinetic profile, valuable antimicrobial spectrum, and good safety profile.

New Developments in Bacterial, Viral, and Fungal Cutaneous Infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review highlights clinically relevant updates to common and significant bacterial, viral, and fungal cutaneous infection within the past 5 years. Recent developments are presented so that the clinician may provide evidence-based, high-quality patient care.

RECENT FINDINGS

New resistance patterns in cutaneous pathogens have recently emerged as a result of inappropriate antimicrobial use. Several new FDA-approved antimicrobials have been approved to treat such infections, including multi-drug resistant pathogens. Several organizational guidelines for cutaneous infection management have been updated with new recommendations for screening, diagnostic, and treatment strategies.

SUMMARY

Clinicians should be aware of the most recent evidence and guidelines for the management of cutaneous infections in order to reduce the emergence of antimicrobial resistance and most effectively treat their patients.

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.