Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review employing meta-analysis

Bactericidal versus bacteriostatic antibacterials: clinical significance, differences and synergistic potential in clinical practice

Antibacterial activity can be classified as either bactericidal or bacteriostatic, using methods such as the MBC/MIC ratio and time-kill curves. However, such categorization has proven challenging in clinical practice, as these definitions only apply under specific laboratory conditions, which may differ from clinical settings. Several factors, such as the specific bacteria or infectious medium, can affect the action of antibiotics, with many antibacterials exerting both activities. These definitions have also led to the belief that bactericidal antibacterials are superior to bacteriostatic, especially in more severe cases, such as endocarditis, neutropenia and bacteraemia. Additionally, current dogma dictates against the combination of bactericidal and bacteriostatic antibacterials in clinical practice, due to potential antagonism. This review aimed to assess the differences in antibacterial activity of bactericidal and bacteriostatic antibacterials based on in vitro and in vivo studies and examine their antagonistic or synergistic effects. Our findings show that specific bacteriostatic agents, such as linezolid and tigecycline, are clinically non-inferior to bactericidals in multiple infections, including pneumonia, intra-abdominal infections, and skin and soft tissue infections. Studies also support using several bacteriostatic agents as salvage therapies in severe infections, such as neutropenic fever and endocarditis. Additionally, not all combinations of bacteriostatic and bactericidal agents appear to be antagonistic, with many combinations, such as linezolid and rifampicin, already being used. The findings should be interpreted with caution, as most evidence is from observational studies and there is a need for randomized controlled trials to assess their effectiveness and combinations, especially within the context of rising antimicrobial resistance.

Efficacy and Safety of Continuous vs Intermittent Linezolid Infusion in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock

The synthetic antimicrobial agent Linezolid effectively penetrates many tissues and exhibits effectiveness against drug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria. This agent's pharmacokinetic qualities cast doubt on the need for intravenous treatment in cases of serious illness. For its time-dependent action to have an impact, serum levels must stay above the minimum inhibitory concentration throughout the dosage interval. According to our research, Linezolid infusions have been proposed to be given as continuous infusions to maintain adequate tissue and serum levels without trough concentration fluctuations. This will optimize the drug's effects and protect against toxicity and drug resistance. In critically ill individuals experiencing septic shock in the ICU, this study sought to validate the safety and efficacy of continuous Linezolid infusion in comparison to the conventional regimen. A prospective, randomized, controlled research involving 140 individuals suffering from septic shock who were older than 18 was carried out. Two groups of patients were randomly assigned. With an average treatment duration of 9.83 ± 2.537 in the intermittent infusion group and 7.39 ± 1.653 in the continuous infusion group, the first group obtained IV linezolid 600 mg twice daily as an intermittent infusion (II) over 60 minutes, whereas the second group obtained 300 mg IV as a loading dosage, and then continuous infusion of 900 mg/day in the first day and 1,200 mg/day in the subsequent days. There was a significantly high clinical cure and less ICU and hospital stay in the continuous infusion group (p < 0.001). Moreover, there was a lower incidence of developing thrombocytopenia in patients with renal impairment who got continuous infusion. Continuous infusion modality showed an advantage in terms of enhancing clinical efficacy in seriously ill cases with septic shock secondary to Gram-positive bacterial infection, especially in cases with renal impairment.

How to cite this article

Albadry AM, Zakaria HY, Elhefny MM, Elsherif IM. Efficacy and Safety of Continuous vs Intermittent Linezolid Infusion in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(12):1118-1121.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

The burden of antibiotic resistance of the main microorganisms causing infections in humans - review of the literature

One of the biggest threats to human well-being and public health is antibiotic resistance. If allowed to spread unchecked, it might become a major health risk and trigger another pandemic. This proves the need to develop antibiotic resistance-related global health solutions that take into consideration microdata from various global locations. Establishing positive social norms, guiding individual and group behavioral habits that support global human health, and ultimately raising public awareness of the need for such action could all have a positive impact. Antibiotic resistance is not just a growing clinical concern but also complicates therapy, making adherence to current guidelines for managing antibiotic resistance extremely difficult. Numerous genetic components have been connected to the development of resistance; some of these components have intricate paths of transfer between microorganisms. Beyond this, the subject of antibiotic resistance is becoming increasingly significant in medical microbiology as new mechanisms underpinning its development are identified. In addition to genetic factors, behaviors such as misdiagnosis, exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics, and delayed diagnosis contribute to the development of resistance. However, advancements in bioinformatics and DNA sequencing technology have completely transformed the diagnostic sector, enabling real-time identification of the components and causes of antibiotic resistance. This information is crucial for developing effective control and prevention strategies to counter the threat.

Effectiveness, safety, and cost of vancomycin and linezolid in Kuwait: A retrospective cohort study

Background

The effectiveness, safety, and cost of vancomycin and linezolid for managing gram-positive bacterial infections in Kuwait are unknown. This study assessed the effectiveness, safety, and cost of vancomycin, teicoplanin and linezolid for managing gram-positive bacterial infections in Kuwait.

Research design and methods

This retrospective study included adult patients who were prescribed antibiotics (vancomycin, teicoplanin, and linezolid) for the treatment of gram-positive infections at five hospitals in Kuwait. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the effectiveness and safety outcomes. A cost analysis was performed on the patients hospitalised for gram-positive infections.

Results

Among 116 patients, 42.2 % (n = 49) received glycopeptides (vancomycin [n = 45] and teicoplanin [n = 4]) or linezolid (n = 67). Clinical cure was achieved in 100 patients without significant intergroup differences (p = 0.34). Thrombocytopenia and acute kidney injury occurred in 19 and 20 patients (p = 0.82 and 0.96), respectively, and their incidence was similar with all the studied agents. The average cost per patient was USD 983.70. The estimated total direct medical costs were USD 894,570.6, the cost was highest for linezolid (USD 469,682.30) and vancomycin (USD 370,342.5), and lowest for teicoplanin (USD 20,799.9).

Conclusions

Glycopeptides and linezolid were highly effective. Linezolid was the most frequently prescribed agent; its effectiveness and safety were similar according to the antibiotic class. However, treatment with linezolid and vancomycin were associated with considerable costs.

Contemporary pharmacologic treatments of MRSA for hospitalized adults: rationale for vancomycin versus non-vancomycin therapies as first line agents

INTRODUCTION

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) remains an important pathogen in the hospital setting and causes significant morbidity and mortality each year. Since the initial discovery over 60 years ago, vancomycin has remained a first-line treatment for many different types of MRSA infections. However, significant concerns related to target attainment and nephrotoxicity have spurred efforts to develop more effective agents in the last two decades.

AREAS COVERED

Newer anti-MRSA antibiotics that have been approved since 2000 include linezolid, daptomycin, and ceftaroline. As clinical evidence has accumulated, these newer agents have become more frequently used, and some are now recommended as co-first-line options (along with vancomycin) in clinical practice guidelines. For this review, a scoping review of the literature was conducted to support our findings and recommendations.

EXPERT OPINION

Vancomycin remains an important standard of care for MRSA infections but is limited with respect to nephrotoxicity and rapid target attainment. Newer agents such as linezolid, daptomycin, and ceftaroline have specific indications for treating different types of MRSA infections; however, newer agents also have unique attributes which require consideration during therapy.

Clinical efficacy and safety of linezolid in intensive care unit patients

Background

To characterize the population of critically ill patients and infections treated with linezolid in the intensive care unit (ICU), and to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of linezolid therapy.

Methods

This multi-center, observational, real-world study was conducted across 52 hospitals between June 9, 2018, and December 28, 2019. Patients who met the following inclusion criteria were included: (1) admitted to the ICU, (2) of any age group, and (3) having a clinical or laboratory diagnosis of a Gram-positive bacterial infection. Clinical efficacy was categorized as success (cured or improved), failed, or non-evaluable. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded during treatment.

Results

A total of 366 ICU patients who met the inclusion criteria were evaluated. Linezolid was used as second- and first-line treatment in 232 (63.4%) and 134 (36.6%) patients, respectively. The most common isolated strain was Staphylococcus aureus (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: n=37/119, 31.1%; methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: n=15/119, 12.6%); this was followed by Enterococci (vancomycin-resistant Enterococci: n=8/119, 6.7%; vancomycin-susceptible Enterococci: n=11/119, 9.2%) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (multidrug-resistant: n=4/119, 3.4%; non-multidrug resistant: n=2/119, 1.7%). The main infection sites where pathogens were detected included the lung (n=216/366, 59.6%), skin and soft tissue (n=104/366, 28.4%), and blood (n=50/366, 13.7%). Clinical success was achieved in 301 (82.2%) patients; 34 (9.3%) were cured and 267 (73.0%) improved; treatment failure and non-evaluable outcomes were observed in 29 (7.9%) in 36 (9.8%) patients, respectively. Linezolid-related adverse events were reported in 8 (2.2%) patients. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusions

Based on real-world results, linezolid was found to be effective and safe in the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections in critically ill patients.

Linezolid-Resistant Enterococcus spp. Isolates from Foods of Animal Origin-The Genetic Basis of Acquired Resistance

Enterococci are important opportunistic pathogens with the capacity to acquire and spread antibiotic resistance. At present, linezolid-resistant enterococci (LRE) pose a great challenge. Linezolid is considered as a last resort antibiotic in the treatment of enterococcal infections, so it is important to monitor the occurrence of LRE in various environments. The aim of this study was to define the genetic mechanisms of linezolid resistance in enterococci (E. faecalis, E. faecium, E. hirae, E. casseliflavus) isolated from foods of animal origin (n = 104). Linezolid resistance (LR) was shown by 26.9% of isolates. All of them displayed linezolid MICs of 8–32 µg/mL, and 96.4% of them were multidrug multidrug-resistant. The most common acquired linezolid resistance gene in LR isolates was poxtA (64%), followed by optrA (28%) and cfr (12%). According to the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first to indicate the presence of the cfr gene among isolates from food. In 28.6% of the isolates, the point mutation G2576T in the V domain of the 23S rRNA was responsible for linezolid resistance. All isolates harbored the wild-type rplC, rplD and rplV genes. The obtained results indicate that linezolid resistance among enterococci in animal-derived food may result from various genetic mechanisms. The most worrying is that this resistance is encoded on mobile genetic elements, so there is a risk of its rapid transmission, even despite the lack of selective pressure resulting from the use of antibiotics.

Current pharmacotherapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia

INTRODUCTION

Currently, several antibiotics are active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and can be used for the treatment of pneumonia. They show great variability in terms of antibiotic class, indication, pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic properties, type of available formulations, spectrum of activity against bacteria other than MRSA, and toxicity profile.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review, the authors discuss the characteristics of currently available agents for the treatment of MRSA pneumonia.

EXPERT OPINION

The availability of different agents with anti-MRSA activity, and approved for the treatment of pneumonia can allow a personalized approach for any given patient based on the severity of the disease, the setting of occurrence, the patient's baseline risk of toxicity and drug interactions, and the possibility of oral therapy whenever early discharge or outpatient treatment are possible. Although some gray areas still remain, like the lack of high certainty evidence on the efficacy of some old agents and on the precise role of companion agents with toxin inhibitory activity in the case of necrotizing pneumonia, the frequent availability of different treatment choices, each with peculiar characteristics, is already allowing an important step toward a precision medicine approach for the treatment of MRSA pneumonia.

Tocilizumab in HIV patient with severe COVID-19: case report

BACKGROUND

A 73-year-old male patient who had a history of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection for over 20 years was diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

CASE PRESENTATION

The patient was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), where he remained for 25 days, due to a severe condition. Intubation, hemodialysis, and tracheostomy were necessary to maintain homeostasis. In addition to regular treatment with etravirine, dolutegravir, darunavir, and ritonavir for highly active antiretroviral therapy, the patient received tocilizumab, which showed a great recovery in the patient's condition.

CONCLUSION

The patient had several risk factors, such as male gender, age  >  70 years, and arterial hypertension. The use of tocilizumab was of great importance in the patient's recovery since the drug increased his immune response, which is deficient, due to HIV infection.

Effect of renal function on the risk of thrombocytopenia in patients receiving linezolid therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

The association of renal function and linezolid‐induced thrombocytopaenia (LIT) remains controversial. We performed a meta‐analysis to determine whether impaired renal function is associated with an increased LIT risk.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2021 for eligible studies evaluating the relationship between renal function and LIT. Indicators of renal function included renal impairment (RI), severe RI, haemodialysis status, creatinine clearance rate (Ccr) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Unadjusted and adjusted estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated separately using a random‐effect model.

Results

A total of 24 studies with 3580 patients were included in the meta‐analysis. RI patients had an increased LIT risk compared to non‐RI patients in both the unadjusted (OR 3.54; 95% CI 2.27, 5.54; I² = 77.7%) and adjusted analyses (OR 2.51; 95% CI 1.82, 3.45; I² = 17.9%). This association persisted in the subset of studies involving only patients receiving a fixed conventional dose (600 mg every 12 h) and other subgroup analyses by ethnicity, sample size and study quality. Moreover, the LIT risk was significantly higher in patients with severe RI and haemodialysis than in patients without severe RI and haemodialysis. The eGFR and Ccr were significantly lower in LIT patients than in non‐LIT patients.

Conclusions

Impaired renal function is associated with an increased risk of LIT. A reduced linezolid dose may be considered in RI patients at a low risk of treatment failure, ideally guided by therapeutic drug monitoring.

Meta-analysis of vancomycin versus linezolid in pneumonia with proven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

OBJECTIVE

American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) guidelines suggest that linezolid (LZD) is preferred over vancomycin (VCM) for treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia. We conducted a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis to compare VCM and LZD efficacy against proven MRSA pneumonia.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed up to November 2019. The outcomes of the meta-analysis were mortality, clinical cure, microbiological evaluation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 1239 patients and eight retrospective cohort or case-control studies (CSs) with a total 6125 patients were identified. Clinical cure and microbiological eradication rates were significantly increased in patients treated with LZD in RCTs (clinical cure: risk ratio (RR) = 0.81, 95% confidential interval (CI) = 0.71-0.92; microbiological eradication: RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.62-0.81) and CSs (clinical cure: odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.18-0.69). However, mortality was comparable between patients treated with VCM and LZD in RCTs (RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.88-1.32) and CSs (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.94-1.53). Likewise, there was no significant difference in adverse events between VCM and LZD in CSs (thrombocytopenia: OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.50-1.82; nephrotoxicity: OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 0.85-3.45).

CONCLUSIONS

According to our meta-analysis of RCTs and CSs conducted worldwide, we found robust evidence to corroborate the IDSA guidelines for the treatment of proven MRSA pneumonia.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Augmented Renal Clearance and How to Augment Antibiotic Dosing

Augmented renal clearance (ARC) refers to the state of heightened renal filtration commonly observed in the critically ill. Its prevalence in this patient population is a consequence of the body’s natural response to serious disease, as well as the administration of fluids and pharmacologic therapies necessary to maintain sufficient blood pressure. ARC is objectively defined as a creatinine clearance of more than 130 mL/min/1.73 m² and is thus a crucial condition to consider when administering antibiotics, many of which are cleared renally. Using conventional dosing regimens risks the possibility of subtherapeutic concentrations or clinical failure. Over the past decade, research has been conducted in patients with ARC who received a number of antibacterials frequently used in the critically ill, such as piperacillin-tazobactam or vancomycin. Strategies to contend with this condition have also been explored, though further investigations remain necessary.

Pilot Study of Aerosolised Plus Intravenous Vancomycin in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Pneumonia

Treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia in critically ill patients remains unsatisfactory. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of aerosolised vancomycin in addition to intravenous administration in this setting. This was a prospective, noncomparative, phase II trial. Patients receiving mechanical ventilation for >48 h in intensive care units (ICUs) were screened; those receiving intravenous vancomycin for MRSA pneumonia were enrolled. Patients received aerosolised vancomycin (250 mg every 12 h for five days) via a vibrating mesh nebuliser. The primary outcome was treatment success (clinical cure or improvement) at the conclusion of antibiotic treatment. Vancomycin concentrations were measured in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid according to administration time. Twenty patients were enrolled (median age 75 years and 13 (65%) men; 18 (90%) cases with nosocomial pneumonia). Thirteen patients (65%) showed clinical cure or improvement. Microbiological eradication of MRSA was confirmed in 14 patients (70%). ICU and hospital mortality rates were 30% and 35%, respectively. Maximum aerosolised vancomycin concentration was observed 4–5 h after nebulising (98.75 ± 21.79 mcg/mL). No additional systemic adverse effects occurred following aerosol vancomycin treatment. Aerosolised vancomycin combination therapy may be an alternative treatment for patients with severe MRSA pneumonia receiving mechanical ventilation (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01925066).

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.

Network meta-analysis and pharmacoeconomic evaluation of antibiotics for the treatment of patients infected with complicated skin and soft structure infection and hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated penumonia

Background

Infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) cause serious health risks and significant economic burdens and the preferred drugs are still controversial.

Methods

We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy and safety of antibiotics used to treat inpatients with complicated skin and soft structure infections (cSSSI) or hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP). We also developed a decision tree model to assess the cost-effectiveness of antibiotics.

Results

Forty-nine randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria (34 for cSSSI, 15 for HAP/VAP) and compared the efficacy and safety of 16 antibiotics. For cSSSI, NMA indicated that for clinical cure, linezolid was superior than vancomycin (odds ratio (OR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19-2.02), while tedizolid (OR 1.39, CI 0.70-2.76) was similar to vancomycin. In terms of safety, there were no significant differences between any two interventions on total adverse events. Based on drug and hospital costs in America, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-year saved for linezolid and tedizolid compared with vancomycin were US$2833 and US$5523. For HAP/VAP, there were no significant effects either for clinical cure or for safety endpoints between linezolid and vancomycin in NMA. ICERs per life-year saved for linezolid compared with vancomycin were US$2185.

Conclusion

In these clinical trials, considering efficacy, safety, and cost-effectivenes, linezolid and tedizolid showed their superiority in MRSA cSSSI; while linezolid might be recommended to treat MRSA pneumonia. Although vancomycin was not cost-effective in pharmacoeconomic evaluation, it is still the first-line treatment for MRSA infection in the clinical practice. This study might provide new insights of therapeutic choices for patients with MRSA infections whilst awaiting the arrival of higher quality evidence.

Evaluating Safety Reporting in Paediatric Antibiotic Trials, 2000-2016: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

There are very few options to treat multidrug-resistant bacterial infections in children. A major barrier is the duration and complexity of regulatory trials of new antibiotics. Extrapolation of safety data from adult trials could facilitate drug development for children.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review on the safety of antibiotic clinical trials (CTs) in children (0-18 years) to evaluate the overall quality of safety trials conducted in children and to determine if age-specific adverse events (AEs) could be identified for specific antibiotic classes.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases for trials conducted between 2000 and 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

All trials in which safety was declared a primary or secondary endpoint were included. Exclusion criteria were (1) topical or inhalational route of administration; (2) non-infectious conditions; (3) administration for prophylaxis rather than treatment; (4) selected population (i.e. cystic fibrosis, malignancies, HIV and tuberculosis); and (5) design other than randomized controlled trials. Trials reporting data on both adults and children were included only if paediatric results were reported separately.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors independently extracted the data. To assess the quality of published trials, the Extension for harms for Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement 2004 was used.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE

In order to quantitatively assess the rate of developing AEs by drug class, the numbers of overall and body-system-specific AEs were collected for each study arm, and then calculated per single drug class as median and interquartile range (IQR) of the proportions across CTs. The AEs most frequently reported were compared in the meta-analysis by selecting the CTs on the most represented drug classes.

RESULTS

Eighty-three CTs were included, accounting for 27,693 children. Overall, 69.7% of CONSORT items were fully reported. The median proportion of children with any AE was 22.5%, but did not exceed 8% in any single body system. Serious drug-related AEs and drug-related discontinuations were very rare (median 0.3 and 0.9%, respectively). Limitations included the inability to stratify by age group, particularly neonates.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Overall, AEs in paediatric antibiotic CTs were predictable and class-specific, and no unexpected (age-specific) side effects were identified. Smaller, open-label, dose-finding, high-quality, single-arm pharmacokinetic trials seem potentially sufficient for certain common antibiotic classes, extrapolating well-established safety profiles determined from large adult efficacy trials. This approach could reduce duration and enhance subsequent registration of urgently needed new antibiotics. This will need to be combined with enhanced methods of pharmacovigilance for monitoring of emerging AEs in routine clinical practice.

Chemical pharmacotherapy for hospital-acquired pneumonia in the elderly

INTRODUCTION

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is a potentially serious infection that primarily affects older patients. The number of patients affected by multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria is increasing, including infection from strains of Staphylococcus aureus, Enterobacteriaceae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

AREAS COVERED

This article focuses specifically on HAP, excluding patients afflicted by ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The pathogenesis and clinical features of HAP in the elderly are discussed as well as specific drug pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations in elderly patients. The current recommended guidelines for the management of HAP are also discussed. Finally, the authors provide evidence on the empirical therapy used for the treatment of HAP and widely consider specific-pathogen treatment of HAP in elderly patients.

EXPERT OPINION

In patients not at risk of MDR organism infection, antibiotics including piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, carbapenems or fluorquinolones are recommended. However, the emergence of MDR organisms as causal agents of HAP makes it necessary to accurately assess risk factors to these pathogens and revise our knowledge on specific antimicrobial susceptibility patterns from each institution. The authors believe that broader-spectrum empiric antibiotic therapies that target P. aeruginosa and methicillin-resistant S. aureus are best recommended in elderly patients at risk of HAP infection by MDR strains.

International survey of paediatric infectious diseases consultants on the management of community-acquired pneumonia complicated by pleural empyema

AIM

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) complicated by pleural empyema is an important paediatric problem. Antibiotic management decisions are made on the basis of little available data and without strong specific recommendations in guidelines.

METHODS

This was an online survey of paediatric infectious diseases (PID) physicians disseminated by major international professional organisations, examining empiric and targeted antibiotic choice, switch to oral antibiotics and duration of treatment for two hypothetical cases of contrasting severity.

RESULTS

This study included 183 responses, mostly from North America, Western Europe and Australia/New Zealand. Increased disease severity was significantly associated with broader-spectrum and combination empiric and targeted antibiotic treatment, empiric methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) coverage and both longer intravenous (IV) and total duration of antibiotic treatment. Empirical MRSA coverage was also associated with local prevalence. Clinical progress was most important for determining the timing of the switch from IV to oral antibiotics. Few respondents chose antibiotics with activity against organisms associated with atypical pneumonia (e.g. Mycoplasma, Chlamydia), and most did not choose agents that inhibit protein synthesis (e.g. clindamycin), even in the case of a severe invasive group A streptococcal infection. Some variation in targeted treatment choices reflected areas of uncertainty, such as Streptococcus pneumoniae susceptibility breakpoints, comparative effectiveness of anti-staphylococcal penicillins and first-generation cephalosporins for serious S. aureus infections and linezolid and vancomycin for MRSA pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS

This international survey of PID physicians highlights the priority targets for clinical research to improve antibiotic treatment of CAP complicated by empyema. Interventions that might be studied include empirical antibiotic guidelines stratified by case severity, adjunctive empirical use of agents that inhibit protein synthesis (e.g. clindamycin) and approaches to encourage rapid IV-to-oral switch and shorter total antibiotic treatment.

Linezolid Inhibited Synthesis of ATP in Mitochondria: Based on GC-MS Metabolomics and HPLC Method

Linezolid has been widely used in serious infections for its effective inhibiting effect against multidrug-resistant gram-positive pathogens. However, linezolid caused severe adverse reactions, such as thrombocytopenia, anaemia, optic neuropathy, and near-fatal serotonin syndrome. In order to investigate the toxicity of linezolid, twenty-four Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into: control group (n=7), low-group (n=8), and high-group (n=9). The rats of low-group and high-group were given by gavage with linezolid 60 and 120 mg/kg/day for 7 days, respectively. The serum concentration of linezolid was determined by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC); blood metabolic change was analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometer (GC-MS). Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) concentration in HepG2-C3A after being cultured with linezolid was determined by HPLC. The results showed that there were six metabolites and nine metabolites had statistical differences in low-group and high-group (P<0.05). The trimethyl phosphate was the most significant indicator in those changed metabolites. Except for d-glucose which was slightly increased in low-group, octadecanoic acid, cholest-5-ene, hexadecanoic acid, α-linolenic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid, 9,12-Octadecadienoic acid, and docosahexaenoic acid were all decreased in low-group and high-group. ATP concentration was decreased in HepG2-C3A after cultured with linezolid. In conclusion, the toxicity of linezolid is related to its serum concentration. Linezolid may inhibit the synthesis of ATP and fatty acid.

Clinical outcomes after initial treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections

Objective

To evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) antimicrobials.

Methods

We reviewed a prospective database of 247 consecutive patients with clinically and microbiologically confirmed MRSA infections, hospitalized in 7 Japanese hospitals between April 2014 and March 2015, and treated with anti-MRSA pharmaceuticals. Survival was measured at 30 days. We examined the relationships between initial antimicrobial administered and survival and organ toxicity. HR and 95% CIs were calculated.

Results

Overall 30-day mortality was 12%. The lungs were infected in 105 (41%), skin and soft tissue in 73 (30%), and bones and joints in 21 (9%) patients. Bacteremia complicated the illness in 69 patients (28%). Among 5 pharmaceuticals, vancomycin was prescribed to 174 (71%), linezolid to 38 (16%), teicoplanin to 22 (9%), and daptomycin to 11 (5%) patients. Vancomycin tended to be associated with the lowest survival (HR=2.47; 95% CI=0.93-6.51; P=0.067), particularly in the lung-infected subgroup (HR=4.85; 95% CI=1.12-20.94; P=0.034) after adjustments for baseline illness severity. The incidence of renal dysfunction tended to be higher in patients with trough serum concentrations of vancomycin >15 mg/dL.

Conclusion

In this observational study reflecting real-world conditions, vancomycin was associated with higher 30-day mortality and incidence of kidney dysfunction than other anti-MRSA agents. The significance of the differences observed among antimicrobials other than vancomycin is uncertain.

Linezolid: a review of its properties, function, and use in critical care

Linezolid can be considered as the first member of the class of oxazolidinone antibiotics. The compound is a synthetic antibiotic that inhibits bacterial protein synthesis through binding to rRNA. It also inhibits the creation of the initiation complex during protein synthesis which can reduce the length of the developed peptide chains, and decrease the rate of reaction of translation elongation. Linezolid has been approved for the treatment of infections caused by vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium, hospital-acquired pneumonia caused by Staphylococcus aureus, complicated skin and skin structure infections (SSSIs), uncomplicated SSSIs caused by methicillin-susceptible S. aureus or Streptococcus pyogenes, and community-acquired pneumonia caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae. Analysis of high-resolution structures of linezolid has demonstrated that it binds a deep cleft of the 50S ribosomal subunit that is surrounded by 23S rRNA nucleotides. Mutation of 23S rRNA was shown to be a linezolid resistance mechanism. Besides, mutations in specific regions of ribosomal proteins uL3 and uL4 are increasingly associated with linezolid resistance. However, these proteins are located further away from the bound drug. The methicillin-resistant S. aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci are considered the most common Gram-positive bacteria found in intensive care units (ICUs), and linezolid, as an antimicrobial drug, is commonly utilized to treat infected ICU patients. The drug has favorable in vitro and in vivo activity against the mentioned organisms and is considered as a useful antibiotic to treat infections in the ICU.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Oxazolidinones

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

Bronchoscopic Improvement of Tracheobronchitis Due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus After Aerosolized Vancomycin: A Case Series

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT) is an important risk factor for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The efficacy of aerosolized vancomycin (AV) in treating VAT has not been clearly demonstrated.

METHODS

Four mechanically ventilated patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia were treated with an additional AV. AV (250 mg twice per day) was administered through a vibrating mesh device for 5 days. All patients were receiving intravenous vancomycin and had severe tracheobronchitis, based on bronchoscopic findings before or soon after additional AV treatment.

RESULTS

After several days of AV treatment, follow-up bronchoscopies showed dramatic improvement of tracheobronchitis. All patients achieved microbiological eradication of MRSA. Finally, two of four patients survived through to hospital discharge.

CONCLUSION

This case series study suggests a potential role of AV in the treatment of MRSA tracheobronchitis, which were accompanied by VAP. Clinical trial addressing the efficacy of AV in MRSA VAT and/or VAP should be needed.

Antibiotic dosing for multidrug-resistant pathogen pneumonia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nosocomial pneumonia caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens is increasing in the ICU, and these infections are negatively associated with patient outcomes. Optimization of antibiotic dosing has been suggested as a key intervention to improve clinical outcomes in patients with nosocomial pneumonia. This review describes the recent pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data relevant to antibiotic dosing for nosocomial pneumonia caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens.

RECENT FINDINGS

Optimal antibiotic treatment is challenging in critically ill patients with nosocomial pneumonia; most dosing guidelines do not consider the altered physiology and illness severity associated with severe lung infections. Antibiotic dosing can be guided by plasma drug concentrations, which do not reflect the concentrations at the site of infection. The application of aggressive dosing regimens, in accordance to the antibiotic's pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characteristics, may be required to ensure rapid and effective drug exposure in infected lung tissues.

SUMMARY

Conventional antibiotic dosing increases the likelihood of therapeutic failure in critically ill patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Alternative dosing strategies, which exploit the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of an antibiotic, should be strongly considered to ensure optimal antibiotic exposure and better therapeutic outcomes in these patients.

Risk of acute kidney injury in critically ill surgical patients with presumed pneumonia is not impacted by choice of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus therapy

Background

Vancomycin and linezolid are standard treatment options for nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia. While acute kidney injury (AKI) is commonly attributed to vancomycin, existing data has not definitely confirmed vancomycin as an independent risk factor for AKI.

Aims

This study aimed to quantify the incidence of AKI in Surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients receiving empiric vancomycin or linezolid for nosocomial pneumonia and to identify risk factors for AKI with a focus on MRSA antibiotic therapy.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective cohort analysis of surgical ICU patients who received at least 48 h of vancomycin or linezolid for pneumonia was performed. Patients who received vancomycin were compared to those who received linezolid with a primary endpoint of AKI as defined by the risk/injury/failure/loss/end-stage renal disease (RIFLE) criteria. A modified RIFLE criteria assessing only changes in serum creatinine was also used.

Results

One hundred one patients were evaluated (63 vancomycin and 38 linezolid). AKI occurred in 51 (81.0%) and 32 (84.2%) patients in the vancomycin and linezolid groups (P = 0.79), respectively. Using the modified RIFLE criteria, AKI occurred in 19 (30.2%) and 14 (36.8%) patients in the vancomycin and linezolid groups (P = 0.448). After adjustment for age, diabetes mellitus, Charlson comorbidity index, and concomitant nephrotoxins, there was no difference in risk of AKI between groups (P = 0.773).

Conclusions

Patients who received empiric vancomycin or linezolid for nosocomial pneumonia experienced high, but similar rates of AKI. The results suggest MRSA antibacterial therapy in this setting may not be independently indicative of AKI risk, rather the risk is likely multifactorial.

Evaluation of the Risk for Acute Kidney Injury in Adult Cystic Fibrosis Patients Receiving Concomitant Vancomycin and Tobramycin

Background

The risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) has been associated with both tobramycin and vancomycin.

Objective

To determine whether the rate of drug therapy-related nephrotoxicity is greater in Cystic Fibrosis (CF) patients receiving concomitant vancomycin and tobramycin than patients receiving either agent alone.

Methods

Adult CF patients admitted for acute pulmonary exacerbation (APE) over a seven-year period (2008-2014), who received at least 72 hours of intravenous vancomycin, tobramycin or a combination of the two agents were evaluated for AKI. AKI was defined as a 1.5-fold increase in serum creatinine per RIFLE criteria. One hundred seventy-four hospital encounters from 72 unique patients were assessed in this single-center, cross-sectional study.

Results

AKI outcomes were not statistically different. AKI rates were 19% for vancomycin, 8.7% for tobramycin, and 19.7% for combination cohorts (p = 0.16).

Conclusion

Our data suggest there is no significant difference in AKI risk when vancomycin and tobramycin combination therapy is used.

Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia in hospitalized patients

AIMS

Thrombocytopenia is among the most important adverse effects of linezolid treatment. Linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia incidence varies considerably but has been associated with impaired renal function. We investigated the pharmacodynamic mechanism (myelosuppression or enhanced platelet destruction) and the role of impaired renal function (RF) in the development of thrombocytopenia.

METHODS

The pharmacokinetics of linezolid were described with a two-compartment distribution model with first-order absorption and elimination. RF was calculated using the expected creatinine clearance. The decrease platelets by linezolid exposure was assumed to occur by one of two mechanisms: inhibition of the formation of platelets (PDI) or stimulation of the elimination (PDS) of platelets.

RESULTS

About 50% of elimination was found to be explained by renal clearance (normal RF). The population mean estimated plasma protein binding of linezolid was 18% [95% confidence interval (CI) 16%, 20%] and was independent of the observed concentrations. The estimated mixture model fraction of patients with a platelet count decreased due to PDI was 0.97 (95% CI 0.87, 1.00), so the fraction due to PDS was 0.03. RF had no influence on linezolid pharmacodynamics.

CONCLUSION

We have described the influence of weight, renal function, age and plasma protein binding on the pharmacokinetics of linezolid. This combined pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and turnover model identified that the most common mechanism of thrombocytopenia associated with linezolid is PDI. Impaired RF increases thrombocytopenia by a pharmacokinetic mechanism. The linezolid dose should be reduced in RF.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for nosocomial pneumonia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the elderly: A retrospective cohort analysis: Effectiveness of linezolid in the elderly

OBJECTIVES

Several reports have compared the efficacy of linezolid (LZD) in Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections with that of vancomycin (VCM); however, these two antibiotics for the treatment of nosocomial MRSA pneumonia in elderly patients has not been well evaluated. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LZD compared with VCM for the treatment of elderly patients with nosocomial MRSA pneumonia in a retrospective chart review of a cohort.

METHODS

We included 28 consecutive patients aged ≥65years hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of MRSA pneumonia and treated with LZD (n=11) or VCM (n=17) between November 2010 and May 2015. We collected patient, disease, and laboratory data. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) total, respiratory, renal, coagulation, hepatic, cardiovascular, and central nervous system scores on days 1, 3, 7, and 14.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to baseline characteristics. The 30-day mortality rate was significantly lower in the LZD group than in the VCM group (0% vs. 41%, P=.02). The SOFA total score on days 3, 7, and 14 were significantly lower those at baseline in the LZD group (P<.05). The SOFA respiratory score on days 14 was also significantly lower than baseline in the LZD group (P<.05).

CONCLUSION

LZD may be more efficacious than VCM for treating elderly patients with nosocomial MRSA pneumonia.

Comparison of Linezolid and Vancomycin for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Pneumonia: Institutional Implications

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies suggesting clinical superiority of linezolid over vancomycin in the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia led to a change in our institution's clinical pathway/order form for hospital-acquired pneumonia, positioning linezolid as the preferred agent. Our objective was to assess the impact of this change within our institution.

DESIGN

Retrospective electronic medical records review.

METHODS

The analysis for this observational study included eligible patients admitted to our medical center between May 1, 2011, and August 31, 2014, with ICD-9 codes for MRSA and pneumonia. Included patients were at least 18 years of age and had vancomycin or linezolid initiated at least 2 days after admission and continued for at least 2 consecutive days. The primary end points were extent of antibiotic use before and after order form change and length of stay (LOS) and hospital charges in the two treatment groups. A secondary aim was to detect any gross discrepancies in patient outcomes such as treatment duration, mechanical ventilation duration, all-cause mortality rate, nephrotoxicity, and 30-day readmission between the two treatment groups.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Outcomes in 227 patients were assessed. Linezolid use increased 16.2% subsequent to the change in the order form. Although not statistically significant, the median hospital admission charge was $6200 lower in patients treated with linezolid compared with those treated with vancomycin ($25,900 vs $32,100). Hospital LOS was significantly associated with Charlson Comorbidity Index score (p<0.001), type of treatment (p=0.032), duration of treatment (p<0.001), mechanical ventilation (p<0.001), and intensive care unit admission (p<0.001). All-cause mortality favored linezolid treatment, and these patients were more likely to be discharged (shorter LOS).

CONCLUSIONS

Although linezolid use increased markedly with this pathway/order form change, no negative institutional consequences or unfavorable patient outcomes were detected, justifying the change in policy from these perspectives.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: role of linezolid in the People's Republic of China

The burden of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia in the People’s Republic of China is high, with methicillin-resistance rates greater than 80% reported for patients with S. aureus pneumonia treated in intensive care units. Historically, vancomycin was the treatment of choice for patients with hospital-acquired MRSA infections. Recent evidence suggests that the minimum inhibitory concentration for vancomycin is increasing. Additionally, patients treated with vancomycin require monitoring of vancomycin trough concentrations and can develop nephrotoxicity. Linezolid is a treatment option for patients with hospital-acquired MRSA infections that can be administered either intravenously or orally. Analysis of data from a worldwide linezolid surveillance program initiated in the year 2004 shows no evidence of increasing linezolid minimum inhibitory concentrations. The clinical efficacy of linezolid for patients with gram-positive, including MRSA, nosocomial pneumonia, was evaluated in numerous studies. In general, results from these studies show higher or similar clinical success with no mortality difference for linezolid compared to vancomycin treated patients. Results from a Phase IV study enrolling patients with MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia suggest higher clinical cure rates for linezolid compared to vancomycin treated patients. Although acquisition costs are higher for linezolid compared to vancomycin therapy, evidence suggests similar overall medical costs. Cost-analysis results from a Chinese perspective show that linezolid dominated vancomycin therapy for MRSA nosocomial pneumonia in ∼35% of bootstrap simulations whereas vancomycin dominated linezolid in less than 2% of bootstrap simulations. In summary, results from both clinical and economic studies, including studies conducted from a Chinese perspective, support the use of linezolid for the treatment of patients with MRSA nosocomial pneumonia.

No Outbreak of Vancomycin and Linezolid Resistance in Staphylococcal Pneumonia over a 10-Year Period

BACKGROUND

Staphylococci can cause wound infections and community- and nosocomial-acquired pneumonia, among a range of illnesses. Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) have been rapidly increasing as a cause of infections worldwide in recent decades. Numerous reports indicate that S. aureus and MRSA are becoming resistant to many antibiotics, which makes them very dangerous. Therefore, this study retrospectively investigated the resistance to antimicrobial agents in all hospitalized patients suffering from community- or nosocomial-acquired pneumonia due to S. aureus and MRSA.

METHODS

Information from the study groups suffering from either community- or nosocomial-acquired pneumonia caused by S. aureus or MRSA was gathered by searching records from 2004 to 2014 at the HELIOS Clinic Wuppertal, Witten/Herdecke University, Germany. The findings of antibiotic resistance were analyzed after the evaluation of susceptibility testing for S. aureus and MRSA.

RESULTS

Total of 147 patients (63.9%, 95% CI 57.5%-69.8%), mean age 67.9 ± 18.5 years, with pneumonia triggered by S. aureus, and 83 patients (36.1%, 95% CI 30.2%-42.5%), mean age 72.3 ± 13.8 years, with pneumonia due to MRSA. S. aureus and MRSA developed no resistance to vancomycin (P = 0.019 vs. < 0.0001, respectively) or linezolid (P = 0.342 vs. < 0.0001, respectively). MRSA (95.3%) and S. aureus (56.3%) showed a high resistance to penicillin. MRSA (87.7%) was also found to have a high antibiotic resistance against ß-lactam antibiotics, compared to S. aureus (9.6%). Furthermore, MRSA compared to S. aureus, respectively, had increased antibiotic resistance to ciprofloxacin (90.1% vs. 17.0%), cefazolin (89.7% vs. 10.2%), cefuroxime (89.0% vs. 9.1%), levofloxacin (88.2% vs. 18.4%), clindamycin (78.0% vs. 14.7%), and erythromycin (76.5% vs. 20.8%).

CONCLUSION

No development of resistance was found to vancomycin and linezolid in patients with pneumonia caused by S. aureus and MRSA.

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP) with Multidrug-Resistant (MDR) Pathogens: Optimal Treatment?

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) due to multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDR) is an emerging problem worldwide. Both gram-negative and gram-positive microorganisms are associated with VAP. We first describe the magnitude of the problem of MDR VAP followed by its clinical impact on survival outcomes, with the primary aim to review the optimal antibiotic choices to treat patients with MDR VAP. We discuss the challenges of intravenous and inhaled antibiotic treatments, as well as of monotherapy and combination antimicrobial therapies.