In vitro activity of tedizolid against gram-positive bacteria in patients with skin and skin structure infections and hospital-acquired pneumonia: a Korean multicenter study

In Vitro Activities of Ceftobiprole, Dalbavancin, Tedizolid and Comparators against Clinical Isolates of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Associated with Skin and Soft Tissue Infections

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are associated with significant morbidity and healthcare costs, especially when caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Vancomycin is a preferred antimicrobial therapy for the management of complicated SSTIs (cSSTIs) caused by MRSA, with linezolid and daptomycin regarded as alternative therapeutic options. Due to the increased rates of antimicrobial resistance in MRSA, several new antibiotics with activity against MRSA have been recently introduced in clinical practice, including ceftobiprole, dalbavancin, and tedizolid. We evaluated the in vitro activities of the aforementioned antibiotics against 124 clinical isolates of MRSA obtained from consecutive patients with SSTIs during the study period (2020-2022). Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for vancomycin, daptomycin, ceftobiprole, dalbavancin, linezolid and tedizolid were evaluated by the MIC Test Strip using Liofilchem strips. We found that when compared to the in vitro activity of vancomycin (MIC₉₀ = 2 μg/mL), dalbavancin possessed the lowest MIC₉₀ (MIC₉₀ = 0.094 μg/mL), followed by tedizolid (MIC₉₀ = 0.38 μg/mL), linezolid, ceftobiprole, and daptomycin (MIC₉₀ = 1 μg/mL). Dalbavancin demonstrated significantly lower MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀ values compared to vancomycin (0.064 vs. 1 and 0.094 vs. 2, respectively). Tedizolid exhibited an almost threefold greater level of in vitro activity than linezolid, and also had superior in vitro activity compared to ceftobiprole, daptomycin and vancomycin. Multidrug-resistant (MDR) phenotypes were detected among 71.8% of the isolates. In conclusion, ceftobiprole, dalbavancin and tedizolid exhibited potent activity against MRSA and are promising antimicrobials in the management of SSTIs caused by MRSA.

Oxazolidinones: mechanisms of resistance and mobile genetic elements involved

The oxazolidinones (linezolid and tedizolid) are last-resort antimicrobial agents used for the treatment of severe infections in humans caused by MDR Gram-positive bacteria. They bind to the peptidyl transferase centre of the bacterial ribosome inhibiting protein synthesis. Even if the majority of Gram-positive bacteria remain susceptible to oxazolidinones, resistant isolates have been reported worldwide. Apart from mutations, affecting mostly the 23S rDNA genes and selected ribosomal proteins, acquisition of resistance genes (cfr and cfr-like, optrA and poxtA), often associated with mobile genetic elements [such as non-conjugative and conjugative plasmids, transposons, integrative and conjugative elements (ICEs), prophages and translocatable units], plays a critical role in oxazolidinone resistance. In this review, we briefly summarize the current knowledge on oxazolidinone resistance mechanisms and provide an overview on the diversity of the mobile genetic elements carrying oxazolidinone resistance genes in Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.

Antibacterial activity of recently approved antibiotics against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections are considered an important public health problem, and treatment options are limited. Accordingly, in this meta-analysis, we analyzed published studies to survey in vitro activity of recently approved antibiotics against MRSA isolates.

Methods

We searched electronic databases; PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify relevant studies (until November 30, 2020) that have focused on the in vitro activity of telavancin, dalbavancin, oritavancin, and tedizolid against MRSA isolates. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA software (version 14.0).

Results

Thirty-eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall in vitro activity of tedizolid on 12,204 MRSA isolates was 0.250 and 0.5 µg/mL for MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀, (minimum inhibitory concentration at which 50% and 90% of isolates were inhibited, respectively), respectively. The overall antibacterial activity of dalbavancin on 28539 MRSA isolates was 0.060 and 0.120 µg/mL for MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀, respectively. The overall antibacterial activity of oritavancin on 420 MRSA isolates was 0.045 and 0.120 µg/mL for MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀, respectively. The overall antibacterial activity of telavancin on 7353 MRSA isolates was 0.032 and 0.060 µg/mL for MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀, respectively. The pooled prevalence of tedizolid, telavancin, and dalbavancin susceptibility was 100% (95% CI: 100–100).

Conclusion

Telavancin, dalbavancin, oritavancin, and tedizolid had potent in vitro activity against MRSA isolates. The low MICs and high susceptibility rates of these antibiotics recommend a hopeful direction to introduce useful antibiotics in treating MRSA infections in the future.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12941-022-00529-z.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Tedizolid

Tedizolid is an oxazolidinone antibiotic with high potency against Gram-positive bacteria and currently prescribed in bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. The aim of the review was to summarize and critically review the key pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects of tedizolid. Tedizolid displays linear pharmacokinetics with good tissue penetration. In in vitro susceptibility studies, tedizolid exhibits activity against the majority of Gram-positive bacteria (minimal inhibitory concentration [MIC] of ≤ 0.5 mg/L), is four-fold more potent than linezolid, and has the potential to treat pathogens being less susceptible to linezolid. Area under the unbound concentration-time curve (fAUC) related to MIC (fAUC/MIC) was best correlated with efficacy. In neutropenic mice, fAUC/MIC of ~ 50 and ~ 20 induced bacteriostasis in thigh and pulmonary infection models, respectively, at 24 h. The presence of granulocytes augmented its antibacterial effect. Hence, tedizolid is currently not recommended for immunocompromised patients. Clinical investigations with daily doses of 200 mg for 6 days showed non-inferiority to twice-daily dosing of linezolid 600 mg for 10 days in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. In addition to its use in skin and skin-structure infections, the high pulmonary penetration makes it an attractive option for respiratory infections including Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Resistance against tedizolid is rare yet effective antimicrobial surveillance and defining pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets for resistance suppression are needed to guide dosing strategies to suppress resistance development.

Potential role of new-generation antibiotics in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the available results of primary analyses from high-quality randomized studies of either recently approved or possible future agents for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI).

RECENT FINDINGS

In the last 2 decades, several novel agents have been approved for the treatment of ABSSSI, that are also active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In addition to already available agents, further molecules are in clinical development that could become available for treating ABSSSI in the forthcoming future.

SUMMARY

The current and future availability of several new-generation antibiotics will allow to modulate therapeutic choices not only on efficacy but also on other relevant factors such as the combination of the drug safety profile and the comorbidities of any given patient, the expected adherence to outpatient therapy, and the possibilities of early discharge or avoiding hospitalization by means of oral formulations, early switch from intravenous to oral therapy, or single-dose administration of long-acting intravenous agents. With the advent of new-generation antibiotics, all these factors are becoming increasingly essential for tailoring treatment to individual patients in line with the principles of personalized medicine, and for optimizing the use of healthcare resources.

In Vitro Activity of Tedizolid Compared to Linezolid and Five Other Antimicrobial Agents against 332 Anaerobic Isolates, Including Bacteroides fragilis Group, Prevotella, Porphyromonas, and Veillonella Species

Tedizolid's anaerobic activity is unappreciated. In this study, it was active against all 332 anaerobic isolates tested at ≤2 μg/ml except Bilophila wadsworthia and was more active than linezolid against Bacteroides fragilis group species (MIC₉₀, 1 μg/ml versus 2 to 4 μg/ml). Tedizolid was active against Gram-positive anaerobes (MIC₉₀ for clostridia, 0.25 to 1 μg/ml; MIC₉₀ for anaerobic cocci, ≤0.06 to 0.25 μg/ml). Our data coupled with clinical reports indicate that clinicians should consider its use in mixed infections where Staphylococcus aureus and anaerobes are involved.

Tedizolid (torezolid) for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections

INTRODUCTION

Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) are among the most frequent infectious diseases. Recently, several new antibiotics with activity against MRSA have been approved. Tedizolid, a second-generation oxazolidinone approved for ABSSSI offers theoretical advantages over first-generation oxazolidinones.

AREAS COVERED

A comprehensive online search of Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference presentations was made, selecting articles between January 2000 and April 2020. In this review, the authors discuss the chemical and microbiological properties of tedizolid, summarize its efficacy, safety, and potential role in the treatment of ABSSSI as well as the potential for future indications.

EXPERT OPINION

Tedizolid has proven to be non-inferior compared to linezolid for the treatment of ABSSSI in two registrational phase III clinical trials, being well tolerated. Tedizolid exhibits antibacterial activity against the most important ABSSSI pathogens (including multidrug-resistant strains of MRSA), as well as mycobacteria and Nocardia. It appears to have a safe profile, including decreased myelotoxicity and no significant drug interactions. Preliminary studies with longer duration of therapy seem to confirm these potential benefits. Overall, tedizolid expands the newly acquired armamentarium to treat ABSSSI. The role of tedizolid for other indications is under investigation and has yet to be determined.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

An increase of skin and soft tissue infections involving Staphylococcus aureus has been reported in community and hospital settings. Methicillin resistance in S. aureus is associated with treatment failure and increased mortality. Recently, new antimicrobials with enhanced activity against methicillin-resistant Staph. aureus have been approved for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections. Among these, novel oxazolidinones and lipoglycopeptides represent options with favorable pharmacokinetic characteristics and safety profiles.

RECENT FINDINGS

Newly approved compounds include tedizolid, characterized by the availability of both oral and intravenous formulation and once daily administration and dalbavancin, a long-acting antimicrobial allowing for weekly administration. These new molecules present advantages, such as enhanced activity against multidrug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria and favorable safety profiles.

SUMMARY

We have reviewed the pharmacokinetic characteristics and the implications for use in skin and soft tissue infections of tedizolid and dalbavancin. Advantages associated with the use of these compounds include the possibility for early patient discharge, reduced hospital length of stay, and outpatient treatment, with potential impact on morbidity, mortality, and overall health-care costs.

Tedizolid phosphate for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy

Introduction

Tedizolid phosphate is an oxazolidinone approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs) and active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Aims

The objective of this article was to review the evidence for the efficacy and safety of tedizolid phosphate for the treatment of ABSSSI.

Evidence review

Approval of tedizolid phosphate for the treatment of ABSSSI was based on the results of two phase III randomized controlled trials, ESTABLISH-1 (NCT01170221) and ESTABLISH-2 (NCT01421511), comparing 6-day once-daily tedizolid vs 10-day twice-daily linezolid. In ESTABLISH-1, noninferiority was met with early clinical response rates of 79.5% and 79.4% in tedizolid and linezolid groups, respectively (difference 0.1%, 95% CI –6.1% to 6.2%, with a 10% noninferiority margin). In ESTABLISH-2, noninferiority was met with 85% and 83% rates of early clinical response in tedizolid and linezolid groups, respectively (difference 2.6%, 95% CI –3.0% to 8.2%). Pooled data from ESTABLISH-1 and ESTABLISH-2 indicated a lower frequency of thrombocytopenia in tedizolid-treated than in linezolid-treated patients.

Conclusion

Tedizolid offers the option of an intravenous to oral switch, allows once-daily administration, and presents lower risk of myelotoxicity when a 6-day course is used for the treatment of ABSSSI. Greater economic cost associated with this antibiotic could be offset by its shorter treatment duration and possibility of oral administration in routine clinical practice, although either sponsored or nonsponsored postmarketing observational experience remains essential for ultimately confirming the effectiveness and tolerability of tedizolid outside clinical trials.

Antimicrobial Therapy in Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Empirical antibiotic therapy remains the cornerstone of treatment in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, the best option for empirical antibiotics for treatment on an ambulatory basis, as well as in those requiring hospitalization, is still unclear. This review tries to answer the question regarding the most appropriate antibiotics in different settings in children with CAP as well as duration of therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have provided insights regarding use of oral antibiotics in children with mild to moderate CAP, and severe CAP with lower chest retractions but no hypoxia. In view of rapidly emerging resistance among various causative pathogens, several new drugs have been currently approved, or are under trial for CAP in children. Current knowledge suggests that the choice of antibiotics for ambulatory treatment of CAP is oral amoxicillin with a duration of 3-5 days. Children with CAP with lower chest retractions but no hypoxia can be treated with oral amoxicillin. Severe pneumonia can be treated with intravenous antibiotics consisting of penicillin/ampicillin with or without an aminoglycoside. Several new drugs have been developed and approved for use in CAP caused by multidrug-resistant organisms, but these should be used judiciously to avoid emergence of further resistance. Future research is needed regarding the safety and efficacy of newer drugs in children.

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

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

What's new in multidrug-resistant pathogens in the ICU?

Over the last several decades, antibacterial drug use has become widespread with their misuse being an ever-increasing phenomenon. Consequently, antibacterial drugs have become less effective or even ineffective, resulting in a global health security emergency. The prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) varies widely among regions and countries. The primary aim of antibiotic stewardship programs is to supervise the three most influential factors contributing to the development and transmission of MDROs, namely: (1) appropriate antibiotic prescribing; (2) early detection and prevention of cross-colonization of MDROs; and (3) elimination of reservoirs. In the future, it is expected that a number of countries will experience a rise in MDROs. These infections will be associated with a high consumption of healthcare resources manifested by a prolonged hospital stay and high mortality. As a counteractive strategy, minimization of broad-spectrum antibiotic use and prompt antibiotic administration will aid in reduction of antibiotic resistance. Innovative management approaches include development and implementation of rapid diagnostic tests that will help in both shortening the duration of therapy and allowing early targeted therapy. The institution of more accessible therapeutic drug monitoring will help to optimize drug administration and support a patient-specific approach. Areas where further research is required are investigation into the heterogeneity of critically ill patients and the need for new antibacterial drug development.

In vitro activity of tedizolid against Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae collected in 2013 and 2014 from sites in Latin American countries, Australia, New Zealand, and China

Tedizolid is an oxazolidinone with an antimicrobial in vitro potency advantage against Gram-positive bacterial pathogens compared to other currently marketed drugs in this class, including linezolid. Tedizolid was compared to linezolid when tested against Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates collected from countries in Latin America and the Asia-Pacific. Isolates were tested by broth microdilution susceptibility methods against tedizolid, linezolid, and non-class comparators in accordance with the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. The activity of tedizolid against S. aureus was potent and consistent in Latin America (MIC₉₀, 0.5 mg/L), Australia and New Zealand (MIC₉₀, 0.25 mg/L), and China (MIC₉₀, 0.5 mg/L). Based on MIC₉₀ results, tedizolid was four- to eight-fold more active than linezolid against S. aureus, including both methicillin-susceptible and -resistant isolates. Only two tedizolid non-susceptible strains were observed; both had intermediate minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of 1 mg/L, for which the MICs of linezolid was higher (≥2 mg/L). Tedizolid (MIC₉₀, 0.25 mg/L) was four-fold more potent than linezolid (MIC₉₀, 1 mg/L) against S. pneumoniae in all countries that provided isolates. The findings from this study support the global clinical development of tedizolid for Gram-positive infections.

Activities of Tedizolid and Linezolid Determined by the Reference Broth Microdilution Method against 3,032 Gram-Positive Bacterial Isolates Collected in Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, and Latin American Countries in 2014

Tedizolid and linezolid in vitro activities against 3,032 Gram-positive pathogens collected in Asia-Pacific, Eastern European, and Latin American medical centers during 2014 were assessed. The isolates were tested for susceptibility by the current reference broth microdilution methods. Due to concern over the effect of MIC endpoint criteria on the results of testing the oxazolidinones tedizolid and linezolid, MIC endpoint values were read by two methods: (i) reading the MIC at the first well where the trailing began without regard for pinpoint trailing, according to CLSI M07-A10 and M100-S26 document instructions for reading linezolid (i.e., 80% inhibition of growth; these reads were designated tedizolid 80 and linezolid 80), and (ii) at 100% inhibition of growth (designated tedizolid 100 and linezolid 100). All Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus anginosus group, and Enterococcus faecalis isolates were inhibited at tedizolid 80 and 100 MIC values of 0.25 and 0.5, 0.25 and 0.25, 0.25 and 0.5, 0.12 and 0.25, and 0.5 and 1 μg/ml, respectively. Generally, MIC50 and MIC90 results for tedizolid 80 and linezolid 80 were one doubling dilution lower than those read at 100% inhibition. Tedizolid was 4- to 8-fold more potent than linezolid against all the isolates tested regardless of the MIC endpoint criterion used. Despite the differences in potency, >99.9% of isolates tested in this survey were susceptible to both linezolid and tedizolid using CLSI and EUCAST interpretive criteria. In conclusion, tedizolid demonstrated greater in vitro potency than linezolid against Gram-positive pathogens isolated from patients in medical centers across the Asia-Pacific region, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.

Serotype Distribution and Antimicrobial Resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae Isolates Causing Invasive and Noninvasive Pneumococcal Diseases in Korea from 2008 to 2014

Introduction. Streptococcus pneumoniae is an important pathogen with high morbidity and mortality rates. The aim of this study was to evaluate the distribution of common serotypes and antimicrobial susceptibility of S. pneumoniae in Korea. Methods. A total of 378 pneumococcal isolates were collected from 2008 through 2014. We analyzed the serotype and antimicrobial susceptibility for both invasive and noninvasive isolates. Results. Over the 7 years, 3 (13.5%), 35 (10.8%), 19A (9.0%), 19F (6.6%), 6A (6.1%), and 34 (5.6%) were common serotypes/serogroups. The vaccine coverage rates of PCV7, PCV10, PCV13, and PPSV23 were 21.4%, 23.3%, 51.9%, and 62.4% in all periods. The proportions of serotypes 19A and 19F decreased and nonvaccine serotypes increased between 2008 and 2010 and 2011 and 2014. Of 378 S. pneumoniae isolates, 131 (34.7%) were multidrug resistant (MDR) and serotypes 19A and 19F were predominant. The resistance rate to levofloxacin was significantly increased (7.2%). Conclusion. We found changes of pneumococcal serotype and antimicrobial susceptibility during the 7 years after introduction of the first pneumococcal vaccine. It is important to continuously monitor pneumococcal serotypes and their susceptibilities.