Impact of linezolid on economic outcomes and determinants of cost in a clinical trial evaluating patients with MRSA complicated 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.

Costs-effectiveness and cost components of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions affecting antibiotic resistance outcomes in hospital patients: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Limited information on costs and the cost-effectiveness of hospital interventions to reduce antibiotic resistance (ABR) hinder efficient resource allocation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review for studies evaluating the costs and cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions aimed at reducing, monitoring and controlling ABR in patients. Articles published until 12 December 2023 were explored using EconLit, EMBASE and PubMed. We focused on critical or high-priority bacteria, as defined by the WHO, and intervention costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we extracted unit costs, ICERs and essential study information including country, intervention, bacteria-drug combination, discount rates, type of model and outcomes. Costs were reported in 2022 US dollars ($), adopting the healthcare system perspective. Country willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds from Woods et al 2016 guided cost-effectiveness assessments. We assessed the studies reporting checklist using Drummond's method.

RESULTS

Among 20 958 articles, 59 (32 pharmaceutical and 27 non-pharmaceutical interventions) met the inclusion criteria. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as hygiene measures, had unit costs as low as $1 per patient, contrasting with generally higher pharmaceutical intervention costs. Several studies found that linezolid-based treatments for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus were cost-effective compared with vancomycin (ICER up to $21 488 per treatment success, all 16 studies' ICERs

CONCLUSION

Robust information on ABR interventions is critical for efficient resource allocation. We highlight cost-effective strategies for mitigating ABR in hospitals, emphasising substantial knowledge gaps, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. Our study serves as a resource for guiding future cost-effectiveness study design and analyses.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020341827 and CRD42022340064.

Collapse

Key Words

• Control strategies
• Infections, diseases, disorders, injuries
• Prevention strategies
• Public Health
• Systematic review

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Humans
• Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
• Checklist
• Drug Resistance, Microbial
• Hospitals
• Pharmaceutical Preparations

Collapse

Grants

• FONDECYT
• Asociación Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID)
• Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo ANID/FONDAP CIGIDEN
• National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Kasim Allel Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK Department of Health and Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
María José Hernández-Leal Department of Community, Maternity and Paediatric Nursing, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain Millennium Nucleus on Sociomedicine, Santiago, Chile
Nichola R Naylor Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK HCAI, Fungal, AMR, AMU & Sepsis Division, UK Health Security Agency, London, UK
Eduardo A Undurraga Escuela de Gobierno, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholars program, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gerard Joseph Abou Jaoude Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
Priyanka Bhandari Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Ellen Flanagan Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
Koen B Pouwels Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK The National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Laith Yakob Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Collapse

Impact of Antimicrobial Stewardship Program on Vancomycin Usage: Costs and Outcomes at Hospital for Tropical Diseases in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Background

Nowadays, with the emergence of vancomycin-resistant strains, the clinical use of vancomycin has been followed closely by applying the antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) to enhance effectiveness in treatment and reduce cost burden for patients.

Methods

A descriptive cross-sectional study at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases was conducted to assess the inpatient status assigned to intravenous vancomycin and factors associated with the cost of treatment during two periods of implementing ASP, which were i) from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2018 (previous ASP-pASP) and ii) from June 1, 2018 to March 31, 2020 (new ASP-nASP).

Results

Among 1375 patients who met the sampling criteria, there were 601 and 774 patients in pASP and nASP, respectively. The rate of no improvement/mortality in the pASP was higher than that in nASP (37.10% vs 25.98%, p <0.05). The proportion of patients with two or more infection episodes in nASP is lower than that in pASP (9.83% vs 18.64%, p<0.05). Besides, nASP has higher length of therapy (LOT) and higher day of therapy (DOT). The average treatment cost in the pASP is higher than that in the nASP, 1891.22 (95% CI, 1713.46–2068.98) USD vs 1775.55 (95% CI, 1576.22–1974.88) USD. There are seven factors (p<0.05) that associate with the total cost of treatment (age, number of infection episodes, length of stay, discharge status, clinical department, LOT, DOT) in pASP. On the other hand, the nASP has five factors (p<0.001), in which the log(LOT) and age are not as statistically significant (p=0.5127 and 0.3852, respectively) as in the pASP model.

Conclusion

The implementation and improvement of the ASP at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases have initially shown benefits for patients using intravenous vancomycin. Specifically, the ASP helps to reduce treatment costs, improve patient outcomes, reduce length of stay and decrease the average daily dose of vancomycin.

Once-daily oral omadacycline versus twice-daily oral linezolid for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (OASIS-2): a phase 3, double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Pathogen resistance and safety concerns limit oral antibiotic options for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily oral omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline antibiotic, versus twice-daily oral linezolid for treatment of ABSSSI.

METHODS

In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority study, eligible adults with ABSSSI at 33 sites in the USA were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive omadacycline (450 mg orally every 24 h over the first 48 h then 300 mg orally every 24 h) or linezolid (600 mg orally every 12 h) for 7-14 days. Randomisation was done via an interactive response system using a computer-generated schedule, and stratified by type of infection (wound infection, cellulitis or erysipelas, or major abscess) and receipt (yes or no) of allowed previous antibacterial treatment. Investigators, funders, and patients were masked to treatment assignments. Primary endpoints were early clinical response, 48-72 h after first dose, in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (randomised patients without solely Gram-negative ABSSSI pathogens at baseline), and investigator-assessed clinical response at post-treatment evaluation, 7-14 days after the last dose, in the mITT population and clinically evaluable population (ie, mITT patients who had a qualifying infection as per study-entry criteria, received study drug, did not receive a confounding antibiotic, and had an assessment of outcome during the protocol-defined window). The safety population included randomised patients who received any amount of study drug. We set a non-inferiority margin of 10%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02877927, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 11, 2016, and June 6, 2017, 861 participants were assessed for eligibility. 735 participants were randomly assigned, of whom 368 received omadacycline and 367 received linezolid. Omadacycline (315 [88%] of 360) was non-inferior to linezolid (297 [83%] of 360) for early clinical response (percentage-point difference 5·0, 95% CI -0·2 to 10·3) in the mITT population. For investigator-assessed clinical response at post-treatment evaluation, omadacycline was non-inferior to linezolid in the mITT (303 [84%] of 360 vs 291 [81%] of 360; percentage-point difference 3·3, 95% CI -2·2 to 9·0) and clinically evaluable (278 [98%] of 284 vs 279 [96%] of 292; 2·3, -0·5 to 5·8) populations. Mild to moderate nausea and vomiting were the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events in omadacycline (111 [30%] of 368 and 62 [17%] of 368, respectively) and linezolid (28 [8%] of 367 and 11 [3%] of 367, respectively) groups.

INTERPRETATION

Once-daily oral omadacycline was non-inferior to twice-daily oral linezolid in adults with ABSSSI, and was safe and well tolerated. Oral-only omadacycline represents a new treatment option for ABSSSI, with potential for reduction in hospital admissions and cost savings.

FUNDING

Paratek Pharmaceuticals.

Linezolid versus vancomycin cost in the treatment of staphylococcal pneumonia

OBJECTIVE

Staphylococcusaureus is involved in around 20% of nosocomial pneumonia cases. Vancomycin used to be the reference antibiotic in this indication, but new molecules have been commercialized, such as linezolid. Previous studies comparing vancomycin and linezolid were based on models. Comparing their real costs from a hospital perspective was needed.

METHODS

We performed a bicentric retrospective analysis with a cost-minimization analysis. The hospital antibiotic acquisition costs were used, as well as the laboratory test and administration costs from the health insurance cost scale. The cost of each hospital stay was evaluated using the national cost scale per diagnosis related group (DRG), and was then weighted by the stay duration.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients were included. All bacteria identified in pulmonary samples were S. aureus. The cost of nursing care per stay with linezolid was €234.10 (SD=91.50) vs. €381.70 (SD=184.70) with vancomycin (P=0.0029). The cost of laboratory tests for linezolid was €172.30 (SD=128.90) per stay vs. €330.70 (SD=198.40) for vancomycin (P=0.0005). The acquisition cost of linezolid per stay was not different from vancomycin based on the price of the generic drug (€54.92 [SD=20.54] vs. €40.30 [SD=22.70]). After weighting by the duration of stay observed, the mean cost per hospital stay was €47,411.50 for linezolid and €57,694.0 for vancomycin (NSD).

CONCLUSION

These results, in favor of linezolid, support other former pharmacoeconomic study based on models. The mean cost per hospitalization stay was not statistically different between the two study groups, but a trend in favor of linezolid is emerging.

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.

Economic features of antibiotic resistance: the case of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

This paper analyses and updates the economic information regarding methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), including information that has been previously reviewed by other authors, and new information, for the purpose of facilitating health management and clinical decisions. The analysed articles reveal great disparity in the economic burden on MRSA patients; this is mainly due to the diversity of the designs of the studies, as well as the variability of the patients and the differences in health care systems. Regarding prophylactic strategies, the studies do not provide conclusive results that could unambiguously orientate health management. The studies addressing treatments noted that linezolid seems to be a cost-effective treatment for MRSA, mostly because it is associated with a shorter length of stay (LOS) in hospital. However, important variables such as antimicrobial susceptibility, infection type and resistance emergence should be included in these analyses before a conclusion is reached regarding which treatment is the best (most efficient). The reviewed studies found that rapid MRSA detection, using molecular techniques, is an efficient technique to control MRSA. As a general conclusion, the management of MRSA infections implicates important economic costs for hospitals, as they result in higher direct costs and longer LOS than those related to methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) patients or MRSA-free patients; there is wide variability in those increased costs, depending on different variables. Moreover, the research reveals a lack of studies on other related topics, such as the economic implications of changes in MRSA epidemiology (community patients and lineages associated with farm animals).

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.

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.

Cost comparison of linezolid versus vancomycin for treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infection caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Quebec

BACKGROUND

In Canada, complicated skin and skin-structure infection (cSSSI) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is usually treated with antibiotics in hospital, with a follow-up course at home for stable patients. The cost implications of using intravenous and oral linezolid instead of intravenous vancomycin in Canadian clinical practice have not been examined.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the potential treatment cost impact for the Quebec health care system of linezolid versus vancomycin for MRSA-related cSSSI therapy, using a net impact analysis approach.

METHODS

Health care resource use associated with linezolid and vancomycin therapy was estimated for patients in Quebec, based on expert opinion. Costs were assigned to health care resources (antibiotics, medical supplies, laboratory testing and health care professional time) based on unit prices. The base-case analysis assumed 14 days of antibiotic treatment for both agents; five days in hospital followed by nine days at home. Therapy duration, length of inpatient treatment and discharge rates were varied in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Antibiotic costs were higher for linezolid than for vancomycin, for both inpatient ($874 versus $144, respectively) and outpatient therapy ($1,356 versus $1,242, respectively). Compared with vancomycin, lower costs for antibiotic preparation, administration and monitoring of linezolid offset drug acquisition costs. Total treatment costs were $3,850 for linezolid versus $5,189 for vancomycin. Results were sensitive to the number of treatment days spent at home and the discharge rate.

CONCLUSION

Using linezolid instead of vancomycin to treat MRSA-related cSSSI, for hospital and home courses combined, may reduce health care resource utilization and costs in Quebec.

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.

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.

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

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

Impact of acute kidney injury on mortality and medical costs in patients with meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a retrospective, multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND

Despite the frequent occurrence of acute kidney injury (AKI) associated with meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection during treatment, the adverse impact of renal injury on clinical and economic outcomes has not been evaluated.

AIM

To study the clinical and economic burdens of MRSA bacteraemia and the impact of AKI occurring during treatment on outcomes.

METHODS

Medical records of patients hospitalized for MRSA bacteraemia between March 2010 and February 2011 in eight hospitals in Korea were reviewed retrospectively to evaluate the risk factors for AKI and mortality. Direct medical costs per patient of MRSA bacteraemia during treatment were estimated from the medical resources consumed.

FINDINGS

In all, 335 patients were identified to have MRSA bacteraemia. AKI occurred in 135 patients (40.3%) during first-line antibiotic therapy. Independent risk factors for AKI were male sex, underlying renal disease, intra-abdominal and central venous catheter infection, and increase in Pitt bacteraemia score. Seventy-seven (23.0%) patients died during the study period. Underlying solid tumour, high Pitt bacteraemia score, and occurrence of AKI were independent risk factors for mortality. The mean total medical cost per MRSA patient was estimated as South Korean Won 5,435,361 (US$4,906), and occurrence of AKI and ICU admission were identified as independent predictors of increased direct medical costs. Compared with patients who retained their baseline renal function, patients with AKI had a 45% increase in medical costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who developed AKI showed significantly higher mortality rate and greater direct medical costs compared with patients who retained baseline renal function.

An evidence-based review of linezolid for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): place in therapy

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), including community-associated and hospital-associated strains, is a major cause of human morbidity and mortality. Treatment options have become limited due to the emergence of MRSA strains with decreased sensitivity to vancomycin, which has long been the first-line therapy for serious infections. This has prompted the search for novel antibiotics that are efficacious against MRSA. Linezolid, an oxazolidinone class of antibiotic, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000 for treatment of MRSA infections. Since then, there have been a multitude of clinical trials and research studies evaluating the effectiveness of linezolid against serious infections, including pneumonia (both community- and hospital-acquired), skin and soft-tissue infections such as diabetic foot ulcers, endocarditis, osteomyelitis, prosthetic devices, and others. The primary aim of this review is to provide an up-to-date evaluation of the clinical evidence for using linezolid to treat MRSA infections, with a focus on recently published studies, including those on nosocomial pneumonia. Other objectives are to analyze the cost-effectiveness of linezolid compared to other agents, and to review the pharmokinetics and pharmacodynamics of linezolid, emphasizing the most current concepts.

In vivo bioluminescence imaging to evaluate systemic and topical antibiotics against community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-infected skin wounds in mice

Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) frequently causes skin and soft tissue infections, including impetigo, cellulitis, folliculitis, and infected wounds and ulcers. Uncomplicated CA-MRSA skin infections are typically managed in an outpatient setting with oral and topical antibiotics and/or incision and drainage, whereas complicated skin infections often require hospitalization, intravenous antibiotics, and sometimes surgery. The aim of this study was to develop a mouse model of CA-MRSA wound infection to compare the efficacy of commonly used systemic and topical antibiotics. A bioluminescent USA300 CA-MRSA strain was inoculated into full-thickness scalpel wounds on the backs of mice and digital photography/image analysis and in vivo bioluminescence imaging were used to measure wound healing and the bacterial burden. Subcutaneous vancomycin, daptomycin, and linezolid similarly reduced the lesion sizes and bacterial burden. Oral linezolid, clindamycin, and doxycycline all decreased the lesion sizes and bacterial burden. Oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole decreased the bacterial burden but did not decrease the lesion size. Topical mupirocin and retapamulin ointments both reduced the bacterial burden. However, the petrolatum vehicle ointment for retapamulin, but not the polyethylene glycol vehicle ointment for mupirocin, promoted wound healing and initially increased the bacterial burden. Finally, in type 2 diabetic mice, subcutaneous linezolid and daptomycin had the most rapid therapeutic effect compared with vancomycin. Taken together, this mouse model of CA-MRSA wound infection, which utilizes in vivo bioluminescence imaging to monitor the bacterial burden, represents an alternative method to evaluate the preclinical in vivo efficacy of systemic and topical antimicrobial agents.

Clinical efficacy of oral linezolid compared with intravenous vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-complicated skin and soft tissue infections: a retrospective, propensity score-matched, case-control analysis

BACKGROUND

Linezolid is 100% bioavailable in oral and intravenous formulations. In a recent prospective, randomized, open-label, comparator-controlled, multicenter, phase 4 clinical trial in adults with complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), linezolid achieved clinical and microbiologic success comparable to appropriately dosed intravenous vancomycin. Although patients were randomly assigned to receive linezolid or vancomycin, the protocol allowed patients to start therapy using oral or intravenous linezolid on the basis of investigator discretion and patient ability to tolerate oral medication.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of linezolid when administered orally in adults with cSSTI caused by MRSA. In this retrospective analysis, we examined data collected from the aforementioned trial to compare outcomes in patients who received either oral linezolid or intravenous vancomycin therapy.

METHODS

This study analyzed outcomes in patients who received treatment for 7 to 14 days with either oral linezolid (600 mg q12h; n = 95) or intravenous vancomycin (15 mg/kg q12h, adjusted for creatinine clearance and trough concentration; n = 210). By design, these groups were not randomized. Propensity score matching on baseline variables was used to balance these groups by identifying a comparable group of patients who received vancomycin therapy and comparing them with patients who received oral linezolid therapy. Clinical and microbiologic success rates at the end of treatment and the end of the study (EOS) were then directly compared between the groups using matched-pair logistic regression. The tolerability of the 2 treatments (within this matched group) was also described.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients with well-matched baseline characteristics were included in each treatment group. At EOS, the odds ratio for clinical success of oral linezolid therapy vs intravenous vancomycin therapy was 4.0 (95% CI, 1.3-12.0; P = 0.01), and the odds ratio for microbiologic success at EOS was 2.7 (95% CI, 1.2-5.7; P = 0.01). Overall rates of adverse events in each group were consistent with reported safety profiles for each drug.

CONCLUSION

A favorable clinical cure rate was achieved with oral linezolid therapy when compared with intravenous vancomycin therapy in propensity score-matched patients with cSSTI proved to be caused by MRSA. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00087490.

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.

Determination of tissue penetration and pharmacokinetics of linezolid in patients with diabetic foot infections using in vivo microdialysis

Staphylococcus aureus and other Gram-positive organisms, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus, continue to be the predominant pathogens associated with diabetic foot infections. Consequently, linezolid is often used to treat these infections. The purpose of the current study was to describe the pharmacokinetic profile and determine the level of penetration of linezolid into healthy thigh tissue and infected wound tissue of the same extremity in 9 diabetic patients with chronic lower limb infections by use of in vivo microdialysis. Hourly plasma and dialysate samples were obtained over a 12-h dosing interval following 3 to 4 doses of linezolid (600 mg intravenously every 12 h). Plasma protein binding was also assessed at 1, 6, and 12 h postdose. The means ± standard deviations (SD) for the maximum concentration in serum (C(max)), the volume of distribution at terminal phase (V(z)), and the half-life (t(1/2)) for linezolid in plasma were 11.99 ± 3.67 μg/ml, 0.71 ± 0.25 liters/kg of body weight, and 4.71 ± 1.23 h, respectively. Mean protein binding was 14.78% (range, 3.85 to 32.03%). The mean areas under the concentration-time curves from 0 to 12 h for the free, unbound fraction of linezolid (fAUC(0-12) values) ± SD for plasma, wound tissue, and thigh tissue were 51.24 ± 12.72, 82.76 ± 59.01, and 92.52 ± 60.44 μg · h/ml, respectively. Tissue penetration ratios (tissue fAUC to plasma fAUC) were similar for thigh (1.42; range, 1.08 to 2.23) and wound (1.27; range, 0.86 to 2.26) tissues (P = 0.648). With the currently approved dosing regimen, linezolid penetrated well into both healthy thigh tissue and infected wound tissue in these diabetic patients.

Optimizing delivery of care for patients with MRSA infection: focus on transitions of care

Staphylococcus aureus is among the most prevalent pathogens isolated from hospitalized patients; those infected with methicillin-resistant strains have longer hospital stays and higher total costs compared with those infected by methicillin-susceptible strains. A multidisciplinary team of health care providers, including hospitalists and other hospital-based physicians, clinical pharmacists, infectious disease specialists, infection control professionals, and case managers, is key to improving treatment and outcomes in these patients. Optimizing transitions of care for hospitalized patients with S aureus infections can improve quality and reduce total costs of care. Hospital length of stay can be shortened by initiating timely, appropriate empiric therapy and by transitioning suitable patients to outpatient antimicrobial therapy. The number of hospitalizations can be reduced by identifying patients who are suitable candidates for initial outpatient antimicrobial therapy. Consistent with good antimicrobial stewardship, the risk of resistance can be minimized by de-escalating empiric therapy to a more narrow-spectrum agent once culture and susceptibility testing results are known. There are several antimicrobial agents available for the management of S aureus infections, including methicillin-resistant S aureus. Consideration of these agents' characteristics may facilitate optimal transition of patients through health care settings.

Retrospective Analysis of Clinical and Cost Outcomes Associated with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infections Treated with Daptomycin, Vancomycin, or Linezolid

Objective. The objective of this analysis was to compare clinical and cost outcomes associated with patients who had suspected or documented methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections treated with daptomycin, vancomycin, or linezolid in complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs). Design. This was a retrospective analysis conducted from February to June of 2007. Appropriate data was collected, collated, and subsequently evaluated with the purpose of quantifying length of stay, antibiotic therapy duration, clinical cure rates, adverse drug events, and cost of hospitalization. Results. All 82 patients included in the analysis experienced clinical cure. The duration of antibiotic therapy was similar among the three groups yet the length of hospitalization was slightly shorter in the daptomycin group. Conclusions. The incidence of resistant staphylococcal infections is increasing; therefore, judicious use of MRSA active agents is paramount. Future studies are necessary to determine if MRSA treatment options can be stratified based on the severity of the infectious process.

ATLAS trials: efficacy and safety of telavancin compared with vancomycin for the treatment of skin infections

Telavancin is an injectable lipoglycopeptide that is bactericidal in vitro against staphylococci, streptococci and vancomycin-susceptible enterococci. Telavancin inhibits bacterial cell wall synthesis by interfering with the synthesis of peptidoglycan, and binds to the bacterial membrane and disrupts membrane barrier function. The Assessment of Telavancin in cSSSI (ATLAS) program, comprising of two Phase III clinical trials, demonstrated noninferiority of telavancin to vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections including infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Among clinically evaluable patients with MRSA isolated at baseline in the pooled study population, the clinical cure rate was 87.0% (208 out of 239) for patients treated with telavancin and 85.9% (225 out of 262) for patients treated with vancomycin. The most common telavancin treatment-emergent adverse events were taste disturbance, nausea, vomiting and foamy urine. Renal adverse events occurred in 3% of telavancin-treated patients and 1% of vancomycin-treated patients. Telavancin is now approved in the USA and Canada for the treatment of Gram-positive complicated skin and skin-structure infections.

Comparative effectiveness of linezolid and vancomycin among a national cohort of patients infected with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

While newer antibiotics play a key role in treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections, knowledge of their real-world clinical impact is limited. We sought to quantify the effectiveness of linezolid compared to that of vancomycin among MRSA-infected patients. This national retrospective cohort study included adult patients admitted to all Veterans Affairs hospitals between January 2002 and June 2008, infected with MRSA, and treated with either linezolid (oral or intravenous [i.v.]) or vancomycin (i.v.). Patients were followed from their treatment initiation date until the event of interest, discharge, death, or December 2008. Utilizing propensity score methods, we estimated the treatment effects of linezolid primarily on time to discharge and secondarily on time to all-cause in-hospital mortality, therapy discontinuation, and all-cause 90-day readmission with Cox proportional-hazard models. We identified 20,107 patients treated with linezolid (3.2%) or vancomycin (96.8%). Baseline covariates were well balanced by treatment group within propensity score quintiles and between propensity score matched patients (626 pairs). The discharge rate was significantly higher among patients treated with linezolid, representing a decreased length of stay, in both the propensity score adjusted (hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.27 to 1.50) and matched (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.44 to 2.00) analyses. A significantly decreased rate of therapy discontinuation, indicating longer therapy duration, was observed in the linezolid group (adjusted HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.75; matched HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.65). In this clinical population of MRSA-infected patients, linezolid therapy was as effective as vancomycin therapy with respect to in-hospital survival and readmission.

Skin and soft tissue infections in hospitalised patients with diabetes: culture isolates and risk factors associated with mortality, length of stay and cost

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) cause substantial morbidity in persons with diabetes. There are few data on pathogens or risk factors associated with important outcomes in diabetic patients hospitalised with SSTIs.

METHODS

Using a clinical research database from CareFusion, we identified 3,030 hospitalised diabetic patients with positive culture isolates and a diagnosis of SSTI in 97 US hospitals between 2003 and 2007. We classified the culture isolates and analysed their association with the anatomic location of infection, mortality, length of stay and hospital costs.

RESULTS

The only culture isolate with a significantly increased prevalence was methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA); prevalence for infection of the foot was increased from 11.6 to 21.9% (p < 0.0001) and for non-foot locations from 14.0% to 24.6% (p = 0.006). Patients with non-foot (vs foot) infections were more severely ill at presentation and had higher mortality rates (2.2% vs 1.0%, p < 0.05). Significant independent risk factors associated with higher mortality rates included having a polymicrobial culture with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (OR 3.1), a monomicrobial culture with other gram-negatives (OR 8.9), greater illness severity (OR 1.9) and being transferred from another hospital (OR 5.1). These factors and need for major surgery were also independently associated with longer length of stay and higher costs.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Among diabetic patients hospitalised with SSTI from 2003 to 2007, only MRSA increased in prevalence. Patients with non-foot (vs foot) infections were more severely ill. Independent risk factors for increased mortality rates, length of stay and costs included more severe illness, transfer from another hospital and wound cultures with Pseudomonas or other gram-negatives.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

This review aimed to compare data regarding the effectiveness and safety of linezolid and vancomycin in the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections. PubMed and other databases were searched to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Nine RCTs studying 2489 clinically assessed patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was no difference between linezolid and vancomycin regarding treatment success in clinically assessed patients [odds ratio (OR)=1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.50]. Linezolid was more effective than vancomycin in patients with skin and soft-tissue infections (OR=1.40, 95% CI 1.01-1.95). However, there was no difference in treatment success for patients with bacteraemia (OR=0.88, 95% CI 0.49-1.58) or pneumonia (OR=1.16, 95% CI 0.85-1.57). Linezolid was associated with better eradication rates in all microbiologically assessed patients compared with vancomycin (OR=1.33, 95% CI 1.03-1.71). There was no difference in total adverse effects possibly or probably related to the study drugs (OR=1.14, 95% CI 0.82-1.59). However, nephrotoxicity was recorded more commonly in patients receiving vancomycin (OR=0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.74). In conclusion, linezolid is as effective as vancomycin in patients with gram-positive infections. There is superior clinical and microbiological outcome with linezolid in complicated skin and soft-tissue infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus.

Antimicrobial stewardship: application in the intensive care unit

Critical-care units can be barometers for appropriate antimicrobial use. There, life and death hang on empirical antimicrobial therapy for treatment of infectious diseases. With increasing therapeutic empiricism, triple-drug, broad-spectrum regimens are often necessary, but cannot be continued without fear of the double-edged sword: a life-saving intervention or loss of life following Clostridium difficile infection, infection from a resistant organism, nephrotoxicity, cardiac toxicity, and so on. While broadened initial empirical therapy is considered a standard, it must be necessary, dosed according to pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic principles, and stopped when no longer needed. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions shepherd these considerations in antimicrobial therapy. With pharmacists and physicians trained in infectious disease and critical care, clear-cut interventions can be focused on beginning or growing a stewardship program, or proposing future studies.

Early appropriate parenteral antimicrobial treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

BACKGROUND

Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) are a major clinical problem, in part because of the increasing resistance of infecting bacteria to our current antibiotic therapies. Prompt appropriate treatment of infections in hospitalized patients reduces the mortality rate. Furthermore, appropriate and timely antibiotic therapy improves outcomes for cSSTIs caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This review delineates factors to consider in the choice of initial antibiotic treatment for cSSTIs and describes the antimicrobial agents available or under clinical development for the treatment of cSSTIs caused by MRSA.

METHODS

Review of the pertinent literature and recommendations.

RESULTS

The choice of antimicrobial agent for empiric treatment of cSSTIs should be guided by the site and type of infection, the presence of an immunocompromised state or neutropenia, and risk factors for hospital-acquired MRSA (HA-MRSA) or community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA) infection. Most CA-MRSA strains remain susceptible to ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, gentamicin, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, although resistance to clindamycin can emerge during treatment. Of the agents available for the treatment of HA-MRSA cSSTIs, vancomycin has been the reference standard, but clinical failures have been reported increasingly. Alternative agents for HA-MRSA include linezolid, which has been well-studied for treatment of cSSTIs, as well as daptomycin and tigecycline. A number of antibiotic agents are undergoing clinical trials or are under development for the treatment of cSSTIs caused by MRSA.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe and progressive cSSTIs should be treated promptly with appropriate antibiotic agents. The choice of agent should be guided by a number of factors, including suspected CA-MRSA or HA-MRSA infection. Available agents should be evaluated carefully for efficacy in the treatment of MRSA cSSTIs.

Cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin for hospitalized patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections in France

Studies have shown similar clinical cure rates and shorter length of hospitalization when using linezolid compared to vancomycin in patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections due to suspected or proven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

OBJECTIVE

This study had for aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin in French healthcare settings.

METHOD

A decision-analytic model followed an average patient from the initiation of an empiric treatment until cure, death or second-line treatment failure. A clinical data probability was obtained from clinical trials, resource utilization data (including treatment duration and length of hospitalization) and prevalence of MRSA was obtained from a Delphi panel, and costs from published sources.

RESULTS

First-line cure rate for linezolid-treated patients was 90.7% versus 85.5% for vancomycin; the total cure rates after two lines of treatment were 98.5% and 98.0%, respectively. The average total cost was 7,778euro for linezolid versus 8,777euro for vancomycin. The mean estimated length of hospitalization after two lines of treatment was 10.7 days for linezolid versus 13.3 days for vancomycin. The increased effectiveness and reduced cost lead to more frequent prescription. This did not change after one-way sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Linezolid may be considered as a cost-effective treatment for patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections suspected to be MRSA related in France.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of linezolid vs. vancomycin in treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus complicated skin and soft tissue infections using a decision analytic model

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin vs. linezolid in complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) using a decision analytic (DA) model.

METHODS

A DA model was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four treatment strategies in the treatment of MRSA cSSTIs: linezolid intravenous (i.v.) to oral (LIN), vancomycin i.v. inpatient treatment (VAN-1), vancomycin i.v. switch to oral linezolid (VAN-2) and vancomycin i.v. switch to outpatient vancomycin i.v. (VAN-3). Probabilities were determined from published clinical trials. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the various strategies were the primary outcome. Univariate (one-way) sensitivity analysis and second-order Monte Carlo simulation (using 10,000 trials) were conducted for all parameters used in the model.

RESULTS

The DA model predicted that VAN-3 was the most cost-effective strategy from the base-case analysis. Average cost-effectiveness ratio for this strategy was $26,831.42/cure. Univariate sensitivity analysis revealed that the model was sensitive to linezolid duration of inpatient stay and duration of i.v. vancomycin before switching to an oral agent or discharged with outpatient i.v. administration with vancomycin. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that VAN-1 was dominated by LIN, but LIN was only 30% cost-effective compared with VAN-3. Acceptability curve showed that the probability of choosing LIN as a cost-effective strategy compared with VAN-1, VAN-2 and VAN-3 increased as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) increased.

CONCLUSION

Alternative vancomycin strategies (VAN-2 and VAN-3) that take advantage of early discharge opportunities were cost-effective compared with LIN. However, LIN's higher efficacy would make it cost-effective for payers with a high WTP threshold.

Treatment strategies for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in pediatrics

Staphylococcus aureus is an important pathogen that frequently causes clinical disease in children. A wide array of illnesses can be caused by this common pathogen ranging from non-invasive skin infections to severe, life-threatening sepsis. Additionally, as antibacterials have been used to eradicate S. aureus, it has developed resistance to these important therapeutic agents. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) has become an increasing problem in pediatric patients over the past decade. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and treatment options available in treating MRSA infections in children. Specifically, we address the importance of abscess drainage in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections, the most common clinical manifestation of MRSA infections, and highlight the various agents that are available for treating this common infection. In severe, life-threatening invasive MRSA infections the primary therapeutic option is vancomycin. In cases of MRSA toxic shock syndrome the addition of clindamycin is necessary. In other invasive MRSA infections, such as pneumonia and musculoskeletal infections, the empiric treatment of choice is clindamycin. Finally, newer agents and additional treatment options are discussed.

Linezolid for the treatment of drug-resistant infections

Multidrug-resistant pathogens have become increasingly common in contemporary healthcare. Specific to Gram-positive pathogens, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is of particular concern, as it has been associated with increased hospital length of stay, higher healthcare expenditures and poorer outcomes. To date, linezolid is the first and only oxazolidinone approved by the US FDA for the treatment of infections caused by Gram-positive pathogens, including MRSA. This article will serve as a comprehensive review of linezolid, including an overview of the current market and its in vitro activity, with an in-depth review of its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile. Emphasis will be placed on clinical data for the drug, both on- and off-label. The article will conclude with a brief overview of linezolid's pharmacoeconomic implications and safety profile, followed by a commentary and 5-year prospective analysis remarking on the future of the antimicrobial field as it relates to MRSA.

Cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin for hospitalised patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections in Germany

This study used a decision analytic model approach to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin in the empirical treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infection (cSSTI) due to suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from the German hospital and health care system perspective. Clinical probabilities were obtained from trial data, resource utilisation and MRSA prevalence rates were obtained through German physician interviews, and costs from published sources were applied to resource units. Outcomes included total cost/patient and cure. The estimated first-line cure rate for linezolid-treated patients was 90.1% versus 85.5% for vancomycin; total cure rates after two lines of treatment were 98.4% and 98.1%, respectively. Average total cost/episode was 8,232 euro for linezolid versus 9,206 euro for vancomycin. The model outcomes were sensitive to changes in length of stay (LOS), isolation days, rate of confirmed MRSA and price of linezolid. Linezolid was expected to result in a shorter intravenous treatment duration and shorter LOS that offset its higher acquisition cost versus vancomycin in cSSTI in Germany.

Current and novel antibiotics against resistant Gram-positive bacteria

The challenge posed by resistance among Gram-positive bacteria, epitomized by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) and vancomycin-intermediate and -resistant S. aureus (VISA and VRSA) is being met by a new generation of antimicrobials. This review focuses on the new β-lactams with activity against MRSA (ceftobiprole and ceftaroline) and on the new glycopeptides (oritavancin, dalbavancin, and telavancin). It will also consider the role of vancomycin in an era of existing alternatives such as linezolid, daptomycin and tigecycline. Finally, compounds in early development are described, such as iclaprim, friulimicin, and retapamulin, among others.

Pharmacoeconomics of linezolid

BACKGROUND

New antibiotics efficacious in infections caused by resistant Gram-positive microorganisms and with acceptable costs for national health systems per unit of effectiveness are needed.

OBJECTIVE

This paper aimed to summarize all available evidence regarding the pharmacoeconomics of linezolid.

METHODS

A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic analyses through a non-restricted literature search was conducted.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid, as compared to vancomycin and teicoplanin, results in a reduction of the necessary resources for the treatment of infections caused by Gram-positive microorganisms. These benefits are attributable to clinical outcomes and to savings associated with the ease of switching from intravenous to oral administration, the shorter duration of intravenous therapy and earlier hospital discharge. Likewise, linezolid, compared to vancomycin and teicoplanin, is a cost-effective treatment.

Management and prevention of diabetic foot ulcers and infections: a health economic review

Diabetic foot ulcers and infections are common and incur substantial economic burden for society, patients and families. We performed a comprehensive review, on a number of databases, of health economic evaluations of a variety of different prevention, diagnostic and treatment strategies in the area of diabetic foot ulcers and infections. We included English-language, peer-reviewed, cost-effectiveness, cost-minimization, cost-utility and cost-benefit studies that evaluated a treatment modality against placebo or comparator (i.e. drug, standard of care), regardless of year. Differences were settled through consensus. The search resulted in 1885 potential citations, of which 20 studies were retained for analysis (3 cost minimization, 13 cost effectiveness and 4 cost utility). Quality scores of studies ranged from 70.8% (fair) to 87.5% (good); mean = 78.4% +/- 5.33%.In diagnosing osteomyelitis in patients with diabetic foot infection, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed 82% sensitivity and 80% specificity. MRI cost less than 3-phase bone scanning + Indium (In)-111/Gallium (Ga)-67; however, when compared with prolonged antibacterials, MRI cost $US120 (year 1993 value) more without additional quality-adjusted life-expectancy. Prevention strategies improved life expectancy and QALYs and reduced foot ulcer rates and amputations.Ampicillin/sulbactam and imipenem/cilastatin were both 80% successful in treating diabetic foot infections but the latter cost $US2924 more (year 1994 value). Linezolid cure rates were higher (97.7%) than vancomycin (86.0%) and cost $US873 less (year 2004 value). Ertapenem costs were significantly lower than piperacillin/tazobactam ($US356 vs $US503, respectively; year 2005 values). Becaplermin plus good wound care may be cost effective in specific populations. Bioengineered living-skin equivalents increased ulcer-free months and ulcers healed, but costs varied between countries. Promogran produced more ulcer-free months than wound care alone (3.75 vs 3.41 months, respectively). Treatment with cadexomer iodine resulted in higher rates of healed ulcer (29% vs 11%) and lower weekly treatment costs (Swedish krona [SEK]903 vs SEK1421; year 1993 values) than standard care. Filgrastim decreased hospital stays, time to resolution and costs (36% lower) compared with usual care. Adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen produced an incremental cost per QALY at year 1 of $US27 310 and $US2255 at year 12 (year 2001 values).Overall, preventive strategies were shown to be cost effective and potentially cost saving. Various antibacterial regimens are cost effective but empiric choices should be based on local resistance patterns. MRI was cost effective compared with three-phase bone scanning + In-111/Ga-67 but not against prolonged antibacterial therapy. Other innovations (becaplermin, bioengineered living-skin equivalents, filgrastim, cadexomer iodine ointment, hyperbaric oxygen, Promogran may be cost effective in this population but more studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Novel antibiotics for the management of diabetic foot infections

Foot infections are a major cause of morbidity in diabetic patients. Staphylococcus aureus is the most important pathogen in mild infections; moderate to severe infections are frequently polymicrobial. Multidrug resistance is an increasing problem in isolates from diabetic feet. Worldwide, up to 30% of patients with diabetic foot infection (DFI) are colonised with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), whilst extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacteria are also common in some countries. This emergence of drug resistance has coincided with the launch or imminent availability of many new antibiotics. Most of these were developed to target multidrug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria, although some have a spectrum of activity that includes Gram-negative bacteria and anaerobes. There is a variable amount of experience with these agents in treating skin and skin-structure infections (SSSIs), especially for DFI. However, at least some have a spectrum of activity and/or pharmacological properties that suggest that they may be of value in managing DFIs. The aim of this paper is to review evidence for the efficacy of new antibiotics in the management of SSSIs, including any data relating specifically to the diabetic foot, and to consider where they might fit into the therapeutic armory against DFI.

A comparison of costs and hospital length of stay associated with intravenous/oral linezolid or intravenous vancomycin treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections caused by suspected or confirmed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in elderly US patients

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the costs and hospital length of stay (LOS) and duration of intravenous therapy associated with intravenous/oral linezolid or intravenous vancomycin treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections (cSSTIs) caused by suspected or confirmed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in elderly US patients.

METHODS

Data were obtained from elderly (>or=65 years) US patients participating in a multinational randomized trial of hospitalized cSSTI patients treated with linezolid or vancomycin. Costs (hospital and total) from the provider perspective were estimated for intent-to-treat (ITT) patients (ie, all those receiving >or=1 dose) using national 2003 costs (ward, medication, intravenous administration). LOS for inpatient care, duration of intravenous linezolid and vancomycin therapy (ITT and MRSA groups), and cure rates were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 717 enrolled subjects, 163 (23%) were elderly (87 linezolid, 76 vancomycin), with no significant differences in demographic characteristics between the linezolid and vancomycin groups. Mean hospitalization and total costs were lower with linezolid compared with vancomycin (hospitalization: US $4510 vs US $6478, P<0.001; total: US $6009 vs US $7329, P=0.03). Linezolid was associated with a 3.5-day reduction in LOS and a 9.5-day reduction in the duration of intravenous therapy compared with vancomycin in the ITT group (both, P<0.001). Cure rates were comparable between linezolid and vancomycin in both the ITT group (88.7% vs 81.4%, respectively) and the MRSA group (80.0% vs 71.4%). In multivariate analyses of the ITT group, linezolid patients were 57% less likely than vancomycin patients to have a LOS >7 days (odds ratio = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21-0.87). Chronic renal failure, malnutrition, and a diagnosis of infected ulcer predicted an LOS >7 days.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of data from elderly patients with cSSTI caused by suspected or confirmed MRSA, linezolid treatment was associated with reductions in the costs of care, LOS, and duration of intravenous treatment without affecting the clinical outcomes. Although the use of a subset of patients from a larger trial that did not focus on the elderly can be seen as a study limitation, the elderly represent an important population when evaluating health care resource use and costs.

Clinical management of diabetic foot infection: diagnostics, therapeutics and the future

Diabetic foot infection accounts for a substantial global burden of morbidity, psychosocial disruption and economic cost. Recommendations for best practice are continuously evolving in parallel with improvements in imaging modalities, development and clinical use of new antimicrobial agents and data surrounding novel adjunctive strategies. We discuss this complex group of infections with a particular emphasis on medical management of osteomyelitis, while also highlighting the importance of a broad multidisciplinary approach to eradicating infection.