Efficacy and safety of linezolid in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI): a meta-analysis

Efficacy and safety of vancomycin compared with those of alternative treatments for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: An umbrella review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of vancomycin compared with those of alternative treatments in adult patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched up to December 15, 2023, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing vancomycin with alternative MRSA treatments. Primary outcomes included clinical cure and microbiological eradication rates. Organ-specific safety outcomes were assessed. Summary estimates were recalculated using a random-effects model. Evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022340359).

RESULTS

This umbrella review included 19 studies and 71 meta-analyses (46 efficacy and 25 safety) comparing vancomycin with 10 alternative treatments across different MRSA infection types and populations. GRADE assessment showed that 29.58% of the meta-analyses were of high quality. Linezolid and daptomycin showed higher efficacy in MRSA-induced skin and soft tissue infections and pneumonia (moderate evidence quality) and bacteremia (very low evidence quality), respectively, compared with that of vancomycin. Cephalosporins had a higher risk of nausea, whereas linezolid had a higher risk of nausea, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia than that of vancomycin. Vancomycin posed a higher risk of rash, pruritus, red man syndrome, and nephrotoxicity than that of alternatives.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of evidence supporting the higher efficacy of alternative treatment over vancomycin for MRSA infection was not high. Given varying safety profiles and advancements in therapeutic monitoring, careful consideration of patient-specific factors and pharmacokinetics is crucial when selecting treatment alternatives to vancomycin.

Efficacy and Safety of Antibiotics in the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Infections: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Vancomycin is a first-line drug for the treatment of MRSA infection. However, overuse of vancomycin can cause bacteria to become resistant, forming resistant strains and making infections more difficult to treat. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different antibiotics in the treatment of MRSA infections and to compare them, mainly with vancomycin, to find better vancomycin alternatives.

METHODS

All studies were obtained from the PubMed and Embase databases from inception to 13 April 2023. The three comprehensive indicators of clinical cure success rate, clinical microbiological success rate, and adverse reactions were evaluated, and the clinical cure success rates of three disease types, complex skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs), complex skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs), and pneumonia, were analyzed in subgroups. All statistical analyses were performed using R and STATA 14.0 software for network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 38 trials with 6281 patients were included, and 13 drug treatments were evaluated. For MRSA infections, the results of network meta-analysis showed that the clinical success rates of linezolid, the combination of vancomycin and rifampin, and the combination of minocycline and rifampin were better than that of vancomycin (RR 1.71; 95%-CI 1.45-2.02), (RR 2.46; 95%-CI 1.10-5.49) (RR, 2.77; 95%-CI 1.06-7.21). The success rate of clinical microbiological treatment with vancomycin was inferior to that with telavancin (RR 0.74; 95%-CI 0.55-0.99). Linezolid had a higher rate of adverse reactions than teicoplanin (RR 5.35; 95%-CI 1.10-25.98). Subgroup analysis showed that vancomycin had a lower clinical success rate than linezolid in the treatment of MRSA-induced cSSSIs, cSSTIs, and pneumonia (RR 0.59; 95%-CI 0.44-0.80) (RR 0.55; 95%-CI 0.35-0.89) (RR 0.55; 95%-CI 0.32-0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and NMA provide a new comparison framework for the clinical treatment of MRSA infection. The NMA suggests that linezolid may be the antibiotic of choice for the treatment of MRSA infections, with the ability to improve clinical and microbiological success rates despite its disadvantage in terms of adverse effects. At the same time, the combination of minocycline and rifampicin may be the most effective drug to treat MRSA-induced cSSSIs, tedizolid may be the best drug to treat MRSA-induced cSSTIs, and the combination of vancomycin and rifampicin may be the most effective treatment for MRSA-induced pneumonia. More high-quality studies are still needed in the future to further identify alternatives to vancomycin.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42023416788.

WHO's essential medicines and AWaRe: recommendations on first- and second-choice antibiotics for empiric treatment of clinical infections

The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) prioritizes medicines that have significant global public health value. The EML can also deliver important messages on appropriate medicine use. Since 2017, in response to the growing challenge of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics on the EML have been reviewed and categorized into three groups: Access, Watch, and Reserve, leading to a new categorization called AWaRe. These categories were developed taking into account the impact of different antibiotics and classes on antimicrobial resistance and the implications for their appropriate use. The 2023 AWaRe classification provides empirical guidance on 41 essential antibiotics for over 30 clinical infections targeting both the primary health care and hospital facility setting. A further 257 antibiotics not included on the EML have been allocated an AWaRe group for stewardship and monitoring purposes. This article describes the development of AWaRe, focussing on the clinical evidence base that guided the selection of Access, Watch, or Reserve antibiotics as first and second choices for each infection. The overarching objective was to offer a tool for optimizing the quality of global antibiotic prescribing and reduce inappropriate use by encouraging the use of Access antibiotics (or no antibiotics) where appropriate. This clinical evidence evaluation and subsequent EML recommendations are the basis for the AWaRe antibiotic book and related smartphone applications. By providing guidance on antibiotic prioritization, AWaRe aims to facilitate the revision of national lists of essential medicines, update national prescribing guidelines, and supervise antibiotic use. Adherence to AWaRe would extend the effectiveness of current antibiotics while helping countries expand access to these life-saving medicines for the benefit of current and future patients, health professionals, and the environment.

Local delivery of linezolid in the treatment of complex orthopedic bone and joint infections in patients with vancomycin allergy: a case series

Introduction: Osteomyelitis is a challenging bone infection associated with ischemia, trauma, or various surgical procedures (e.g., joint reconstruction). Treatment involves eradicating infected bone and soft tissue, local antibiotic delivery, and a 6-week course of antibiotics. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections are common, and vancomycin is the standard treatment, but alternatives like linezolid are needed in vancomycin-resistant and vancomycin-allergic patients. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients treated by the senior author between 2013 and 2021. The study included patients who received local delivery of linezolid for bone and/or joint infection with documented evidence of vancomycin allergy. Patient demographics, surgical details, linezolid delivery method, and outcomes were recorded. Clinical outcomes and subsequent procedures leading to infection eradication were documented. Results: A total of 13 patients were treated with linezolid-antibiotic-laden spacers with polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) carrier. Nine patients were successfully treated using limb-salvage techniques and were still infection-free after a mean follow-up of 55.5 months. Conclusions: Linezolid-loaded bone cement is an option for managing chronic bone and joint infections, particularly MRSA, in patients with vancomycin allergy.

Role of Extracellular DNA in Dalbavancin Activity against Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Biofilms in Patients with Skin and Soft Tissue Infections

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has become the leading cause of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs). Biofilm production further complicates patient treatment, contributing to increased bacterial persistence and antibiotic tolerance. The study aimed to explore the efficacy of different antibiotics on biofilm-producing MRSA isolated from patients with SSTI. A total of 32 MRSA strains were collected from patients with SSTI. The MIC and minimal biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC) were measured in planktonic and biofilm growth. The study showed that dalbavancin, linezolid, and vancomycin all inhibited MRSA growth at their EUCAST susceptible breakpoint. Of the MRSA strains, 87.5% (n = 28) were strong biofilm producers (SBPs), while only 12.5% (n = 4) were weak biofilm producers (WBPs). The MBEC90 values for dalbavancin were significantly lower than those of linezolid and vancomycin in all tested strains. We also found that extracellular DNA (eDNA) contributes to the initial microbial attachment and biofilm formation. The amount of eDNA differed among MRSA strains and was significantly higher in those isolates with high dalbavancin and vancomycin tolerance. Exogenously added DNA increased the MBEC90 and protection of biofilm cells from dalbavancin activity. Of note, the relative abundance of eDNA was higher in MRSA biofilms exposed to MBEC90 dalbavancin than in untreated MRSA biofilms and those exposed to sub-MIC90. Overall, dalbavancin was the most active antibiotic against MRSA biofilms at concentrations achievable in the human serum. Moreover, the evidence of a drug-related increase of eDNA and its contribution to antimicrobial drug tolerance reveals novel potential targets for antibiofilm strategies against MRSA. IMPORTANCE Staphylococcus aureus is the most common cause of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) worldwide. In addition, methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is increasingly frequent in postoperative infections and responsible for a large number of hospital readmissions and deaths. Biofilm formation by S. aureus is a primary risk factor in SSTIs, due to a higher antibiotic tolerance. Our study showed that the biofilm-forming capacity varied among MRSA strains, although strong biofilm producers were significantly more abundant than weak biofilm producer strains. Notably, dalbavancin demonstrated a potent antibiofilm activity at concentrations achievable in human serum. Nevertheless, dalbavancin activity was affected by an increased concentration of extracellular DNA in the biofilm matrix. This study provides novel insight for designing more targeted therapeutic strategies against MRSA and to prevent or eradicate harmful biofilms.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Vancomycin, Linezolid, Tedizolid, and Daptomycin in Treating Patients with Suspected or Proven Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Skin and soft structure infections (SSTIs) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pose serious health risks and cause significant cost burdens, and a conclusive recommendation about antibiotics has not yet been generated. Therefore, we performed this updated network meta-analysis to determine the preferred drug for the treatment of MRSA-caused SSTIs.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify any potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the comparative efficacy and safety of any two of vancomycin, linezolid, tedizolid, and daptomycin in MRSA-caused SSTIs. All statistical analyses were conducted with RevMan, ADDIS, and STATA software.

Results

Twenty eligible RCTs involving 7804 patients were included for the final analysis. Direct meta-analysis suggested that linezolid was superior to vancomycin in improving clinical (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–1.99; P = 0.02) and microbiological (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.24–2.86; P = 0.003) success, which were all confirmed by network meta-analyses. No statistical differences were identified regarding other comparisons. Meanwhile, there were no significant differences between any two antibiotics related to safety. Moreover, ranking probabilities indicated that linezolid had the highest probability of being ranked best in terms of clinical and microbiological success.

Conclusion

Based on the limited evidence, linezolid may be a preferred antibiotic for the treatment of MRSA-caused SSTIs because it showed superiority in clinical and microbiological success without difference regarding safety.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00456-0.

Linezolid for therapy of Staphylococcus aureus meningitis: a cohort study of 26 patients

BACKGROUND

Linezolid has good penetration to the meninges and could be an alternative for treatment of Staphylococcus aureus meningitis. We assessed the efficacy and safety of linezolid therapy for this infection.

METHODS

Retrospective multicenter cohort study of 26 adults treated with linezolid, derived from a cohort of 350 cases of S. aureus meningitis diagnosed at 11 university hospitals in Spain (1981-2015).

RESULTS

There were 15 males (58%) and mean age was 47.3 years. Meningitis was postoperative in 21 (81%) patients. The infection was nosocomial in 23 (88%) cases, and caused by methicillin-resistant S. aureus in 15 cases and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus in 11. Linezolid was given as empirical therapy in 10 cases, as directed therapy in 10, and due to failure of vancomycin in 6. Monotherapy was given to 16 (62%) patients. Median duration of linezolid therapy was 17 days (IQR 12-22 days) with a daily dose of 1,200 mg in all cases. The clinical response rate to linezolid was 69% (18/26) and microbiological response was observed in 14 of 15 cases evaluated (93%). Overall 30-day mortality was 23% and was directly associated with infection in most cases. When compared with the patients of the cohort, no significant difference in mortality was observed between patients receiving linezolid or vancomycin for therapy of methicillin-resistant S. aureus meningitis (9% vs. 20%; p = .16) nor between patients receiving linezolid or cloxacillin for therapy of methicillin-susceptible S. aureus meningitis (20% vs 14%; p = .68). Adverse events appeared in 14% (3/22) of patients, but linezolid was discontinued in only one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid appears to be effective and safe for therapy of S. aureus meningitis. Our findings showed that linezolid may be considered an adequate alternative to other antimicrobials in meningitis caused by S. aureus.

A comparative assessment of clinical, pharmacological and antimicrobial profile of novel anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus agent levonadifloxacin: Therapeutic role in nosocomial and community infections

Staphylococcus aureus is of significant clinical concern in both community- and hospital-onset infections. The key to the success of S. aureus as a pathogen is its ability to swiftly develop antimicrobial resistance. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is not only resistant to nearly all beta-lactams but also demonstrates resistance to several classes of antibiotics. A high prevalence of MRSA is seen across worldwide. For many decades, vancomycin remained as gold standard antibiotic for the treatment of MRSA infections. In the past decades, linezolid, daptomycin, ceftaroline and telavancin received regulatory approval for the treatment of infections caused by resistant Gram-positive pathogens. Although these drugs may offer some advantages over vancomycin, they also have significant limitations. These includes vancomycin's slow bactericidal activity, poor lung penetration and nephrotxicity;linezolid therapy induced myelosuppression and high cost of daptomycin greatly limits their clinical use. Moreover, daptomycin also gets inactivated by lung naturally occurring surfactants. Thus, currently available therapeutic options are unable to provide safe and efficacious treatment for those patients suffering from hospital-acquired pneumonia, bloodstream infections (BSIs), bone and joint infections and diabetic foot infections (DFI). An unmet need also exists for a safe and efficacious oral option for switch-over convenience and community treatment. Herein, the review is intended to describe the supporting role of anti-staphylococcal antibiotics used in the management of S. aureus infections with a special reference to levonadifloxacin. Levonadifloxacin and its prodrug alalevonadifloxacin are novel benzoquinolizine subclass of quinolone with broad-spectrum of anti-MRSA activity. It has been recently approved for the treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infection as well as concurrent bacteraemia and DFI in India.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Oxazolidinones

Oxazolidinones are a class of synthetic antimicrobial agents with potent activity against a wide range of multidrug-resistant Gram-positive pathogens including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Oxazolidinones exhibit their antibacterial effects by inhibiting protein synthesis acting on the ribosomal 50S subunit of the bacteria and thus preventing formation of a functional 70S initiation complex. Currently, two oxazolidinones have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration: linezolid and more recently tedizolid. Other oxazolidinones are currently under investigation in clinical trials. These antimicrobial agents exhibit a favourable pharmacokinetic profile with an excellent bioavailability and a good tissue and organ penetration. In-vitro susceptibility studies have shown that oxazolidinones are bacteriostatic against enterococci and staphylococci, and bactericidal for the majority of strains of streptococci. In the context of emergence of resistance to glycopeptides, oxazolidinones have become an effective alternative to vancomycin treatment frequently associated with nephrotoxicity. However, oxazolidinones, and linezolid in particular, are associated with significant adverse events, myelosuppression representing the main unfavourable side effect. More recently, tedizolid has been shown to effectively treat acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. This newer oxazolidinone offers the advantages of once-daily dosing and a better safety profile in healthy volunteer studies (fewer gastrointestinal and haematological side effects). The potential use of tedizolid for other infections that could require longer therapy warrants further studies for positioning this new oxazolidinone in the available antimicrobial armamentarium. Moreover, other oxazolidinones are currently under active investigation.

The Role of Streptococcal and Staphylococcal Exotoxins and Proteases in Human Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections

Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are critical clinical conditions characterized by extensive necrosis of any layer of the soft tissue and systemic toxicity. Group A streptococci (GAS) and Staphylococcus aureus are two major pathogens associated with monomicrobial NSTIs. In the tissue environment, both Gram-positive bacteria secrete a variety of molecules, including pore-forming exotoxins, superantigens, and proteases with cytolytic and immunomodulatory functions. The present review summarizes the current knowledge about streptococcal and staphylococcal toxins in NSTIs with a special focus on their contribution to disease progression, tissue pathology, and immune evasion strategies.

Management of complicated skin and soft tissue infections with a special focus on the role of newer antibiotics

Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) represent the severe form of infectious disease that involves deeper soft tissues. Involvement of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) further complicates cSSTI with increased hospitalization, health care costs, and overall mortality. Various international guidelines provide recommendations on the management of cSSTIs, with the inclusion of newer antibiotics. This literature-based review discusses the overall management of cSSTI, including appropriate use of antibiotics in clinical practice. Successful treatment of cSSTIs starts with early and precise diagnosis, including identification of causative pathogen and its load, determination of infection severity, associated complications, and risk factors. The current standard-of-care for cSSTIs involves incision, drainage, surgical debridement, broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy, and supportive care. In recent years, the emergence of newer antibiotics (eg, ceftaroline, tigecycline, daptomycin, linezolid, etc) has provided clinicians wider options of antimicrobial therapy. Selection of antibiotics should be based on the drug characteristics, effectiveness, safety, and treatment costs, alongside other aspects such as host factors and local multidrug resistance rates. However, larger studies on newer antibiotics are warranted to refine the decision making on the appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Local Antimicrobial Stewardship Program strategies in health care settings could guide clinicians for early initiation of specific treatments to combat region-specific antimicrobial resistance, minimize adverse effects, and to improve outcomes such as reduction in Clostridium difficile infections. These strategies involving iv-to-oral switch, de-escalation to narrow-spectrum antibiotics, and dose optimization have an impact on the overall improvement of cSSTI therapy outcomes, especially in countries like Singapore that has a high disease burden.

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.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

BACKGROUND

The morbidity and treatment costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are high. Linezolid and vancomycin are antibiotics that are commonly used in treating skin and soft-tissue infections, specifically those infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update of this review we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 March 2015; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure, and SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. We performed subgroup analyses according to age, and whether the infection was due to MRSA.

MAIN RESULTS

No new trials were identified for this first update. We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs, including SSTIs caused by MRSA. The available evidence is at high risk of bias and is based on studies that were supported by the pharmaceutical company that makes linezolid. Further well-designed, independently-funded, RCTs are needed to confirm the available evidence.

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.

Rising Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections in Ear, Nose, and Throat Diseases

The increasing incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections (MRSA) in ENT diseases is becoming a big clinical concern. Here two patients are described who developed MRSA infections presented with unusual post-FESS epistaxis and postmastoidectomy perichondrial abscess and failed treatment with broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics. Following treatment with oral linezolid combined with local mupirocin dressing both patients fully recovered.

The Japanese guidelines for the management of sepsis

This is a guideline for the management of sepsis, developed by the Sepsis Registry Committee of The Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine (JSICM) launched in March 2007. This guideline was developed on the basis of evidence-based medicine and focuses on unique treatments in Japan that have not been included in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines (SSCG), as well as treatments that are viewed differently in Japan and in Western countries. Although the methods in this guideline conform to the 2008 SSCG, the Japanese literature and the results of the Sepsis Registry Survey, which was performed twice by the Sepsis Registry Committee in intensive care units (ICUs) registered with JSICM, are also referred. This is the first and original guideline for sepsis in Japan and is expected to be properly used in daily clinical practice.

This article is translated from Japanese, originally published as “The Japanese Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis” in the Journal of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine (J Jpn Soc Intensive Care Med), 2013; 20:124–73. The original work is at http://dx.doi.org/10.3918/jsicm.20.124.

Hospitalist perspective on the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections

The prevalence of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) has been increasing in the United States. These infections are associated with an increase in hospital admissions. Hospitalists play an increasingly important role in the management of these infections and need to use hospital resources efficiently and effectively. When available, observation units are useful for treating low-risk patients who do not require hospital admission. Imaging tools may help to exclude abscesses and necrotizing soft tissue infections; however, surgical exploration remains the principal means of diagnosing necrotizing soft tissue infections. The most common pathogens that cause SSTIs are streptococci and Staphylococcus aureus. Methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) is a prevalent pathogen, and concerns are increasing regarding the unclear distinctions between community-acquired and hospital-acquired MRSA. Other less frequent pathogens that cause SSTIs include Enterococcus species, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella species, Enterobacter species, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Cephalexin and clindamycin are suitable options for infections caused by streptococcal species and methicillin-susceptible S aureus. The increasing resistance of S aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes to erythromycin limits its use in these infections, and better alternatives are available. Parenteral cefazolin, nafcillin, or oxacillin can be used in hospitalized patients with nonpurulent cellulitis caused by streptococci and methicillin-susceptible S aureus. When oral MRSA therapy is indicated, clindamycin, doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, or linezolid is appropriate. Vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin, tigecycline, telavancin, and ceftaroline fosamil are intravenous options that should be used in MRSA infections that require patient hospitalization. In the treatment of patients with SSTIs, hospitalists are at the forefront of providing proper patient care that reduces hospital costs, duration of therapy, and therapeutic failures. This review updates guidelines on the management of SSTIs with a focus on infections caused by S aureus, particularly MRSA, and outlines the role of the hospitalist in the effective management of SSTIs.

Chinese herbal medicines for treating skin and soft-tissue infections

BACKGROUND

Skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) are common infections of the epidermis, dermis or subcutaneous tissue. SSTIs range in severity from minor, self-limiting, superficial infections to deep, aggressive, gangrenous, life-threatening infections. Some classifications divide SSTIs into 'complicated' and 'uncomplicated' infections based on clinical severity. Treatments of SSTIs involves antibiotic therapy, surgical debridement or drainage, and resuscitation if required. Sometimes these treatments are limited by high treatment costs, bacterial resistance to antibiotics and side effects, therefore, many people with SSTIs are turning to Chinese herbal medicines to treat this problem.Chinese herbal medicines are natural substances that have been used for centuries in China where they are generally considered to be effective for SSTIs. Some Chinese herbal medicines have been shown to have antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties, although a few herbal medicines have been reported to have side effects. Therefore there is a need to review the current clinical evidence systematically to inform current practice and guide future studies on Chinese herbal medicines for SSTIs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of Chinese herbal medicines for treating skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs).

SEARCH METHODS

Searches were not restricted by date, language or publication status. In July 2014 we searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; Ovid AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine); and EBSCO CINAHL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with SSTIs that compared Chinese herbal medicines with another intervention or control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the literature search results independently; there were no disagreements.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no information available from RCTs to support or refute the use of Chinese herbal medicines in treating people with SSTIs.

Daptomycin and Its Immunomodulatory Effect: Consequences for Antibiotic Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Wound Infections after Heart Surgery

Infections by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) play an increasing role in the postoperative course. Although wound infections after cardiac surgery are rare, the outcome is limited by the prolonged treatment with high mortality. Not only surgical debridement is crucial, but also antibiotic support. Next to vancomycin and linezolid, daptomycin gains increasing importance. Although clinical evidence is limited, daptomycin has immunomodulatory properties, resulting in the suppression of cytokine expression after host immune response stimulation by MRSA. Experimental studies showed an improved efficacy of daptomycin in combination with administration of vitamin E before infecting wounds by MRSA.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

BACKGROUND

The morbidity and treatment costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are high. Linezolid and vancomycin are antibiotics that are commonly used in treating skin and soft-tissue infections, specifically those infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2013 we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure, and SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. We performed subgroup analyses according to age, and whether the infection was due to MRSA.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs, including SSTIs caused by MRSA. The available evidence is at high risk of bias and is based on studies that were supported by the pharmaceutical company that makes linezolid. Further well-designed, independently-funded, RCTs are needed to confirm the available evidence.

Antibiotic therapy for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in non surgical wounds

BACKGROUND

Non surgical wounds include chronic ulcers (pressure or decubitus ulcers, venous ulcers, diabetic ulcers, ischaemic ulcers), burns and traumatic wounds. The prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonisation (i.e. presence of MRSA in the absence of clinical features of infection such as redness or pus discharge) or infection in chronic ulcers varies between 7% and 30%. MRSA colonisation or infection of non surgical wounds can result in MRSA bacteraemia (infection of the blood) which is associated with a 30-day mortality of about 28% to 38% and a one-year mortality of about 55%. People with non surgical wounds colonised or infected with MRSA may be reservoirs of MRSA, so it is important to treat them, however, we do not know the optimal antibiotic regimen to use in these cases.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits (such as decreased mortality and improved quality of life) and harms (such as adverse events related to antibiotic use) of all antibiotic treatments in people with non surgical wounds with established colonisation or infection caused by MRSA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 13 March 2013); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (2013, Issue 2); NHS Economic Evaluation Database (2013, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to February Week 4 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, March 12, 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 2013 Week 10); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 8 March 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antibiotic treatment with no antibiotic treatment or with another antibiotic regimen for the treatment of MRSA-infected non surgical wounds. We included all relevant RCTs in the analysis, irrespective of language, publication status, publication year, or sample size.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials, and extracted data from the trial reports. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for comparing the binary outcomes between the groups and planned to calculate the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for comparing the continuous outcomes. We planned to perform the meta-analysis using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We performed intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three trials that met the inclusion criteria for this review. In these, a total of 47 people with MRSA-positive diabetic foot infections were randomised to six different antibiotic regimens. While these trials included 925 people with multiple pathogens, they reported the information on outcomes for people with MRSA infections separately (MRSA prevalence: 5.1%). The only outcome reported for people with MRSA infection in these trials was the eradication of MRSA. The three trials did not report the review's primary outcomes (death and quality of life) and secondary outcomes (length of hospital stay, use of healthcare resources and time to complete wound healing). Two trials reported serious adverse events in people with infection due to any type of bacteria (i.e. not just MRSA infections), so the proportion of patients with serious adverse events was not available for MRSA-infected wounds. Overall, MRSA was eradicated in 31/47 (66%) of the people included in the three trials, but there were no significant differences in the proportion of people in whom MRSA was eradicated in any of the comparisons, as shown below.1. Daptomycin compared with vancomycin or semisynthetic penicillin: RR of MRSA eradication 1.13; 95% CI 0.56 to 2.25 (14 people).2. Ertapenem compared with piperacillin/tazobactam: RR of MRSA eradication 0.71; 95% CI 0.06 to 9.10 (10 people).3. Moxifloxacin compared with piperacillin/tazobactam followed by amoxycillin/clavulanate: RR of MRSA eradication 0.87; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36 (23 people).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no trials comparing the use of antibiotics with no antibiotic for treating MRSA-colonised non-surgical wounds and therefore can draw no conclusions for this population. In the trials that compared different antibiotics for treating MRSA-infected non surgical wounds, there was no evidence that any one antibiotic was better than the others. Further well-designed RCTs are necessary.

Economic burden of inpatient and outpatient antibiotic treatment for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus complicated skin and soft-tissue infections: a comparison of linezolid, vancomycin, and daptomycin

Background

Previous economic analyses evaluating treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) complicated skin and soft-tissue infections (cSSTI) failed to include all direct treatment costs such as outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT). Our objective was to develop an economic model from a US payer perspective that includes all direct inpatient and outpatient costs incurred by patients with MRSA cSSTI receiving linezolid, vancomycin, or daptomycin.

Methods

A 4-week decision model was developed for this economic analysis. Published literature and database analyses with validation by experts provided clinical, resource use, and cost inputs on data such as efficacy rate, length of stay, adverse events, and OPAT services. Base-case analysis assumed equal efficacy and equal length of stay for treatments. We conducted several sensitivity analyses where assumptions on resource use or efficacy were varied. Costs were reported in year-end 2011 US dollars.

Results

Total treatment costs in the base-case were lower for linezolid ($10,571) than vancomycin ($11,096), and daptomycin ($13,612). Inpatient treatment costs were $740 more, but outpatient costs, $1,266 less with linezolid than vancomycin therapy due to a switch to oral linezolid when the patient was discharged. Compared with daptomycin, both inpatient and outpatient treatment costs were lower with linezolid by $87 and $2,954 respectively. In sensitivity analyses, linezolid had lower costs compared with vancomycin and daptomycin when using differential length of stay data from a clinical trial, and using success rates from a meta-analysis. In a scenario without peripherally inserted central catheter line costs, linezolid became slightly more expensive than vancomycin (by $285), but remained less costly than daptomycin (by $2,316).

Conclusion

Outpatient costs of managing MRSA cSSTI may be reduced by 30%–50% with oral linezolid compared with vancomycin or daptomycin. Results from this analysis support potential economic benefit and cost savings of using linezolid versus traditional OPAT when total inpatient and outpatient medical costs are evaluated.

Economic evaluation of treatment for MRSA complicated skin and soft tissue infections in Glasgow hospitals

In the UK, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-associated skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are predominantly managed in the hospital using intravenous (IV) glycopeptides. We set out to explore the potential for and relative healthcare costs of earlier hospital discharge through switch to oral antibiotic therapy (linezolid or rifampicin and doxycycline) or continuation of IV therapy (teicoplanin) via an outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) service. Over 16 months, 173 patients were retrospectively identified with MRSA SSTI, of whom 82.8 % were treated with IV therapy. Thirty-seven patients were potentially suitable for earlier discharge with outpatient therapy. The model assumed 3 days of inpatient management and a maximum of 14 days of outpatient therapy. For the status quo, where patients received only inpatient care with IV therapy, hospital costs were calculated at £12,316 per patient, with 97 % of costs accounted for by direct bed day costs. The mean total cost savings achievable through OPAT or oral therapy was estimated to be £6,136 and £6,159 per patient treated, respectively. A significant proportion of patients with MRSA SSTI may be suitable for outpatient management with either oral therapy or via OPAT, with the potential for significant reduction in healthcare costs.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

BACKGROUND

The morbidity and treatment costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are high. Linezolid and vancomycin are antibiotics that are commonly used in treating skin and soft-tissue infections, specifically those infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2013 we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure, and SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. We performed subgroup analyses according to age, and whether the infection was due to MRSA.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs, including SSTIs caused by MRSA. The available evidence is at high risk of bias and is based on studies that were supported by the pharmaceutical company that makes linezolid. Further well-designed, independently-funded, RCTs are needed to confirm the available evidence.

Most meta-analyses of drug interventions have narrow scopes and many focus on specific agents

OBJECTIVE

To assess the extent to which meta-analysis publications of drugs and biologics focus on specific named agents or even only a single agent, and identify characteristics associated with such focus.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We evaluated 499 articles with meta-analyses published in 2010 and estimated how many did not cover all the available comparisons of tested interventions for a given condition (not all-inclusive); focused on specific named agent(s), or focused strictly on comparisons of only one specific active agent vs. placebo/no treatment or different doses/schedules.

RESULTS

Of 499 eligible articles, 403 (80.8%) were not all-inclusive, 214 (42.9%) covered only specific named agent(s), and 74 (14.8%) examined only comparisons with one active agent vs. placebo/no treatment or different doses/schedules. Only 39 articles (7.8%) covered all possible indications for the examined agent(s). After adjusting for type of treatment/field, focus on specific named agent(s) was associated with publication in journal venues (odds ratio [OR]: 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-3.26) vs. Cochrane, industry sponsoring (OR: 3.94; 95% CI: 1.66-10.66), and individual patient data analyses (OR: 6.59; 95% CI: 2.24-19.39). Individual patient data analyses primarily (29/34) focused on specific named agent(s).

CONCLUSION

The scope of meta-analysis publications frequently is narrow and shaped to serve particular agents.

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.

Diagnosis and management of skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTI): a literature review and consensus statement on behalf of the Italian Society of Infectious Diseases and International Society of Chemotherapy

Skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) are among the most common bacterial infections, posing considerable diagnostic and therapeutic challenges and resulting in significant morbidity and mortality among patients as well as increased healthcare costs. eight members of the SSTI working group of the Italian Society of infectious Diseases prepared a draft of the statements, grading the quality of each piece of evidence after a careful review of the current literature using MEDLINE database and their own clinical experience. Statements were graded for their strength and quality using a system based on the one adopted by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). The manuscript was successively reviewed by seven members of the SSTI working group of the international Society of Chemotherapy, and ultimately re-formulated by all e xperts. the microbiological and clinical aspects together with diagnostic features were considered for uncomplicated and complicated SSTIs. Antimicrobial therapy was considered as well -both empirical and targeted to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and/or other main pathogens.

Eight-year (2002-2009) summary of the linezolid (Zyvox® Annual Appraisal of Potency and Spectrum; ZAAPS) program in European countries

The linezolid surveillance network (ZAAPS program) has been monitoring linezolid activity and susceptibility rates for eight years (2002-2009) in european medical centers. Samples from 12-24 sites annually in 11 countries were monitored by a central laboratory design using reference MIC methods with international and regional interpretations (EUCAST). A total of 13,404 gram-positive pathogens were tested from 6 pathogen groups. Linezolid remained without documented resistance from 2002 through 2005, but beginning in 2006 resistant strains emerged at very low rates among Staphylococcus aureus (G2576T mutant in ireland, 2007), coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS; usually Staphylococcus epidermidis, France and Italy in 2006-2009) and enterococci (Enterococcus faecium in Germany [2006, 2008, 2009] and E. faecalis in Sweden [2008], United Kingdom [2008] and Germany [2009]); all but one strain having a target mutation. A mobile cfr was detected in an italian CoNS strain (2008 and 2009), and clonal spread was noted for linezolid-resistant strains (PFGE results). Overall the linezolid susceptibility rates were >99.9, 99.7 and 99.6% for S. aureus, CoNS and enterococci, respectively; and all streptococcal strains were susceptible (MIC(90), 1 mg/l). In conclusion, the ZAAPS program surveillance confirmed high, sustained levels of linezolid activity from 2002-2009 and without evidence of MIC creep or escalating resistance in gram-positive pathogens across monitored european nations.

New insights into meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pathogenesis, treatment and resistance

Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) remains one of the principal multiply resistant bacterial pathogens causing serious healthcare-associated and community-onset infections. This paper reviews recent studies that have elucidated the virulence strategies employed by MRSA, key clinical trials of agents used to treat serious MRSA infections, and accumulating data regarding the implications of antibacterial resistance in MRSA for clinical success during therapy. Recent pre-clinical data support a species-specific role for Panton-Valentine leukocidin in the development of acute severe S. aureus infections and have elucidated other virulence mechanisms, including novel modes of internalisation, varying post-invasion strategies (featuring both upregulation and downregulation of virulence factors) and phenotypic switching. Recent double-blind, randomised, phase III/IV clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of linezolid and telavancin in hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and complicated skin and skin-structure infections (cSSSIs) caused by MRSA. Tigecycline was non-inferior to imipenem/cilastatin in non-ventilator-associated HAP but was inferior in ventilator-associated pneumonia and has shown a higher rate of death than comparators on meta-analysis. Ceftaroline was clinically and microbiologically non-inferior to vancomycin/aztreonam in the treatment of MRSA cSSSI. Key resistance issues include a rise in vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations in MRSA, reports of clonal isolates with linezolid resistance mediated by acquisition of the chloramphenicol/florfenicol resistance gene, and case reports of daptomycin resistance resulting in clinical failure. Novel antimicrobial targets must be identified with some regularity or we will face the risk of untreatable S. aureus infections.

Continuous versus intermittent infusion of vancomycin for the treatment of Gram-positive infections: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To summarize available evidence on the effect of continuous infusion (CoI) of vancomycin compared with intermittent infusion (InI) in adult patients with Gram-positive infections.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that comparatively assessed CoI and InI of vancomycin in terms of mortality, clinical cure, toxicity rates and serum drug exposure [trough concentration (C(min)) for InI and steady-state concentration (C(ss)) for CoI; area under the curve at 24 h (AUC(24)) for both] were included. Meta-analysis was conducted combining and analysing the relative risk (RR) and computing a summary RR of the effects with 95% confidence interval (CI). The standardized mean difference was calculated for continuous outcomes. The I(2) test was calculated to assess heterogeneity across studies.

RESULTS

One RCT and five observational studies were included in the analysis. Compared with InI, CoI of vancomycin was associated with a significantly lower risk of nephrotoxicity (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.9, P = 0.02; I(2)= 0). Overall mortality was not different between the two groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.7-1.6, P = 0.9; I(2)= 0).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that administration of vancomycin for the treatment of Gram-positive infections by CoI is associated with a significantly lower risk of nephrotoxicity when compared with InI of the drug. RCTs are needed to define the impact on mortality rate and on the pharmacodynamic activity in terms of AUC/MIC ratio.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of linezolid, daptomycin, and vancomycin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: complicated skin and skin structure infection using Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) is a prominent infection encountered in hospital and outpatient settings that is associated with high resource use for the health-care system.

OBJECTIVE

A decision analytic (DA) model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of linezolid, daptomycin, and vancomycin in MRSA cSSSI.

METHODS

Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis were used to generate efficacy and safety parameters for a DA model using published clinical trials. CEA was done from the US health-care perspective. Efficacy was defined as a successfully treated patient at the test of cure without any adverse reaction. Primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between linezolid and vancomycin, daptomycin and vancomycin, and linezolid and daptomycin in MRSA cSSSI. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

The total direct costs of linezolid, daptomycin, and vancomycin were $18,057, $20,698, and $23,671, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratios for linezolid, daptomycin, and vancomycin were $37,604, $44,086, and $52,663 per successfully treated patient, respectively. Linezolid and daptomycin were dominant strategies compared to vancomycin. However, linezolid was dominant when compared to daptomycin. The model was sensitive to the duration of daptomycin and linezolid treatment.

CONCLUSION

Linezolid and daptomycin are potentially cost-effective based on the assumptions of the DA model; however, linezolid appears to be more cost-effective compared to daptomycin and vancomycin for MRSA cSSSIs.

Eight-year experience with cryopreserved arterial homografts for the in situ reconstruction of abdominal aortic infections

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated short-term and long-term outcomes in patients with abdominal aortic infection (mycotic aneurysm, prosthetic graft infection, aortoenteric fistula) managed by total excision of the aneurysm or the infected vascular graft and in situ aortic reconstruction with a cryopreserved arterial homograft (CAH).

METHODS

From January 2000 to December 2008, 110 consecutive patients underwent CAH implantation for treatment of vascular infections. In 57 (52%), in situ revascularization of the abdominal aorta with Y-prosthesis constructed from CAHs was performed. Early outcome included 30-day mortality and the levels of daily blood markers (leucocytes, C-reactive protein, and platelets) during the postsurgical 10-day period. We reported long-term survival and freedom from reoperation rates, including all indications for reoperation.

RESULTS

Indications for operation were infected vascular graft in 31 patients (55%), aortodigestive fistulae in 11 (19%), nonruptured mycotic aneurysms in 4 (7%), and ruptured mycotic aneurysms of abdominal aorta in 11 (19%). In 39 of 57 patients (68%), the intraoperative specimens were positive for at least one microorganism, and Staphylococcus aureus was present in 14 (25%). In 32 patients (82%) with intraoperative specimens positive for microorganisms, there was no evidence of the intraoperatively detected microorganisms in the postoperative specimens (wound, blood culture, and drainage fluid). The peak value of leucocytes (13.7 +/- 4.4 x 10(3)/L) and C-reactive protein (200 +/- 75 mg/L) occurred on postoperative day 3. Platelets reached the lowest value on postoperative day 2 (178 +/- 67 x 10(9)/L). Median peak body temperature was 37.7 degrees +/- 0.6 degrees C. Thirty-day mortality was 9% (5 of 57 patients). Median follow-up was 36 months (range, 4-118 months); 3-year survival was 81%, and freedom from reoperation was 89%. Five patients (9%) required reoperation, in one patient each for postoperative bleeding, acute cholecystitis, homograft occlusion, homograft-duodenum fistula, and aneurysmal degeneration. No recurrence of infection was reported.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate an encouraging outcome after cryopreserved allograft implantation for the treatment of vascular infections in the abdominal aorta. The data represent a basis for future comparisons with other treatment modalities for vascular infections, including silver-coated prostheses and autogenous femoral veins.