Infective endocarditis treated with linezolid: case report and literature review

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.

Update on the appropriate use of linezolid in clinical practice

Multi-antibiotic resistant Gram-positive cocci, which include Staphylococcus aureus, the coagulase-negative staphylococcal group, Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium, and other streptococci, represent emerging pathogens especially in the setting of the immunocompromised, hospitalized patients, in particular when surgery, invasive procedures, or prosthetic implants are of concern, patients are admitted in intensive care units, or underlying chronic disorders and immunodeficiency are of concern, and broad-spectrum antibiotics or immunosuppressive drugs are widely administered. During the recent years, the phenomenon of multiresistant Gram-positive cocci is spreading to the community, where the retrieval of such microorganism is progressively increasing. The spectrum of available antimicrobial compounds for an effective management of these relevant infections is significantly impaired in selection and clinical efficacy by the emerging and spread of methicillin-resistant and more recently glycopeptide-resistant Gram-positive microbial strains. The first oxazolidinone derivative linezolid, together with the recently licensed quinupristin–dalfopristin, daptomycin, and tigecycline, followed by a number of glycopeptides, fluoroquinolones, and other experimental compounds on the pipeline, represent an effective response to the great majority of these concerns, due to their innovative mechanisms of action, their maintained or enhanced activity against multiresistant pathogens, their effective pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties, their frequent possibility of synergistic activity with other compounds effective against Gram-positive pathogens, and a diffuse potential for a safe and easy administration, also when compromised patients are of concern. The main problems related to the epidemiological and clinical features of multiresistant Gram-positive infection, the potential clinical indications of all recently available compounds compared with the standard of care of treatment of resistant Gram-positive infections, and updated data on efficacy and tolerability of linezolid as the golden standard compound for vancomycin-resistant Gram-positive cocci in multiple clinical situations, are outlined and updated on the ground of an extensive review of all the available, recent evidences coming from the international literature.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) endocarditis treated with linezolid

Linezolid is not yet recognized as a standard therapy for infective endocarditis but its use becomes a necessity when infection is due to multidrug-resistant microorganisms. This report describes 1 patient with endocarditis treated with linezolid and 45 similar cases from the medical literature.

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.

Oral antibiotic therapy of serious systemic infections

Traditionally, antibiotics have been administered intravenously (IV) for serious systemic infections. As more potent oral antibiotics were introduced, and their pharmacokinetic aspects studied, orally administered antibiotics have been increasingly used for serious systemic infections. Antibiotics ideal for oral administration are those that have the appropriate spectrum, high degree of activity against the presumed or known pathogen, and have good bioavailability. Oral antibiotics with high bioavailability, that is > or = 90% absorbed, achieve serum/tissue concentrations comparable to IV administered antibiotics at the same dose. The popularity of "IV to PO switch therapy" is possible because of the availability of many potent oral antibiotics with high bioavailability. Initial IV therapy is appropriate in patients who are in shock/have impaired intestinal absorption, but after clinical defervescence, completion of therapy should be accomplished with oral antibiotics. As experience with "IV to PO switch therapy" has accumulated, confidence in oral antimicrobics for therapy of serious systemic infections has continued to increase. The trend in treating serious systemic infections entirely with oral antimicrobial therapy will continue, and is clearly the wave of the future.

Antimicrobial therapy of multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Antibiotic resistance among pneumococci, enterococci, and staphylococci has become increasingly important in recent decades. Clinicians should be familiar with the nuances of antibiotic susceptibility testing and interpretation in selecting antibiotics for these infections. The clinical significance of penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, macrolide-resistant S pneumoniae, and multidrug-resistant S pneumoniae is discussed. The clinical spectrum and therapeutic approach to Enterococcus faecalis (i.e., vancomycin-sensitive enterococci) and E faecium (i.e., vancomycin-resistant enterococci) are discussed. Differences in therapeutic approach between methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) infections are reviewed. Differences between in vitro susceptibility testing and in vivo effectiveness of antibiotics for hospital-acquired MRSA (HA-MRSA) are described. Finally, the clinical features of infection and therapy of HA-MRSA and community-acquired MRSA (CA-MRSA) infections are compared.