Comparison of vancomycin and linezolid in patients with peripheral vascular disease and/or diabetes in an observational European study of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Fluoroquinolones and Biofilm: A Narrative Review

Background: Biofilm-associated infections frequently span multiple body sites and represent a significant clinical challenge, often requiring a multidisciplinary approach involving surgery and antimicrobial therapy. These infections are commonly healthcare-associated and frequently related to internal or external medical devices. The formation of biofilms complicates treatment, as they create environments that are difficult for most antimicrobial agents to penetrate. Fluoroquinolones play a critical role in the eradication of biofilm-related infections. Numerous studies have investigated the synergistic potential of combining fluoroquinolones with other chemical agents to augment their efficacy while minimizing potential toxicity. Comparative research suggests that the antibiofilm activity of fluoroquinolones is superior to that of beta-lactams and glycopeptides. However, their activity remains less effective than that of minocycline and fosfomycin. Noteworthy combinations include fluoroquinolones with fosfomycin and aminoglycosides for enhanced activity against Gram-negative organisms and fluoroquinolones with minocycline and rifampin for more effective treatment of Gram-positive infections. Despite the limitations of fluoroquinolones due to the intrinsic characteristics of this antibiotic, they remain fundamental in this setting thanks to their bioavailability and synergisms with other drugs. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using online databases (PubMed/MEDLINE/Google Scholar) and books written by experts in microbiology and infectious diseases to identify relevant studies on fluoroquinolones and biofilm. Results: This review critically assesses the role of fluoroquinolones in managing biofilm-associated infections in various clinical settings while also exploring the potential benefits of combination therapy with these antibiotics. Conclusions: The literature predominantly consists of in vitro studies, with limited in vivo investigations. Although real world data are scarce, they are in accordance with fluoroquinolones' effectiveness in managing early biofilm-associated infections. Also, future perspectives of newer treatment options to be placed alongside fluoroquinolones are discussed. This review underscores the role of fluoroquinolones in the setting of biofilm-associated infections, providing a comprehensive guide for physicians regarding the best use of this class of antibiotics while highlighting the existing critical issues.

Diabetic Osteomyelitis: Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics at a Single Level 1 Academic Medical Trauma Center

Residual osteomyelitis is a frequent problem following surgical intervention for diabetic foot infection. The Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines recommend a prolonged course of antibiotics for treatment of residual osteomyelitis. Recent literature suggests oral antibiotic therapy is not inferior to IV therapy. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate treatment success in 128 patients receiving oral versus IV antibiotics for residual osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot after amputation at a Level 1 academic medical trauma center. Treatment success was defined as completion of at least 4 weeks of antibiotic therapy, complete surgical wound healing, and no residual infection requiring further debridement or amputation within 1 year of the initial surgery. Patients with peripheral arterial disease were excluded. A retrospective chart review was performed, and we found no statistically significant difference in treatment success between these two groups (p = .2766). The median time to healing for oral antibiotic treatment was 3.17 months compared to 4.06 months for IV treatment (p = .1045). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in group demographics or comorbidities, aside from more patients in the IV group having coronary artery disease (p = .0416). The type of closure and whether the infection was single or polymicrobial were also not associated with a difference in outcomes between the two treatment arms. The results of the present study suggest oral antibiotics for treatment of residual osteomyelitis are not inferior to IV therapy and may be more efficacious for certain patients regarding cost and ease of administration.

Tackling Extended Hospital Stays in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

Hospitalisation rates for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) are rising and represent a large pharmacoeconomic burden as treatment may involve an extended number of days of antibiotic therapy. This article first aims to provide a review of treatment challenges associated with ABSSSIs in both hospital and outpatient settings, and shows that while more traditionally treatment has been conducted in a hospital setting, for a number of patients, a variety of considerations, including pharmacoeconomics, infection control, and patient preference, has led to the development of recommendations to assess the eligibility of patients for early discharge from hospital to complete their antibiotic regimen in the outpatient setting. However, such patients require monitoring for drug adherence to oral regimens or complications associated with daily intravenous administration, such as injection site reactions and infection. This review also focuses on one of a number of new antibiotics for ABSSSI, dalbavancin, as the long-acting glycopeptide with the most clinical experience to date. This antibiotic has been shown to be as effective as a daily/twice daily regimen with similar safety profiles. Health economic analysis of dalbavancin is also presented. It has shown that in some, though not all, clinical settings a reduction in the overall treatment cost is evident as, despite a higher medication cost, the lower hospitalisation time can lead to greater cost savings. In conclusion, while the burden of ABSSSI is rising, new treatment options provide additional therapeutic choice, although pharmacoeconomic considerations might limit use in some cases.

Impact of Underlying Comorbidities on Outcomes of Patients Treated with Ceftaroline Fosamil for Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: Pooled Results from Three Phase III Randomized Clinical Trials

Introduction

In three phase III randomized controlled trials, ceftaroline fosamil was shown to be non-inferior to vancomycin plus aztreonam for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs). This exploratory analysis evaluated the impact of underlying comorbidities on clinical outcomes in patients with cSSTI pooled from these three studies.

Methods

CANVAS 1 and 2 and COVERS evaluated ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 12 h [q12h]; 600 mg every 8 h [q8h; COVERS]) versus vancomycin plus aztreonam (1 g q12h each [CANVAS 1 and 2]; vancomycin 15 mg/kg q12h and aztreonam 1 g q8h [COVERS]) in hospitalized adults with cSSTI. The primary efficacy variable in each trial was clinical response at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit. Subgroup analyses were performed on the pooled clinically evaluable (CE) population, exploring the impact of age and various baseline comorbidities.

Results

Overall, 1808 patients were included in the CE population (1005 ceftaroline fosamil; 803 vancomycin plus aztreonam). Clinical cure rates at TOC were 89.7% (ceftaroline fosamil) and 90.8% (vancomycin plus aztreonam) (difference [95% confidence interval] − 1.13 [− 3.87, 1.67]). Clinical response rates were similar between treatment groups, regardless of age (≤ 65 years or > 65 years), and in subgroups of patients with and without diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, cancer/malignancy, renal impairment, and obesity; within these subgroups, efficacy and safety results were generally consistent with those of the overall cSSTI population.

Conclusions

This analysis provides supportive evidence of the efficacy of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with cSSTI and underlying comorbidities.

Trial Registration

CANVAS 1, NCT00424190 and CANVAS 2, NCT00423657 (both trials first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov 18/01/2007); COVERS, NCT01499277 (first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov 26/12/2011).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00557-w.

Staphylococcal Skin and Soft Tissue Infections

Staphylococcus aureus is the most common bacteria causing purulent skin and soft tissue infections. Many disease-causing S aureus strains are methicillin resistant; thus, empiric therapy should be given to cover methicillin-resistant S aureus. Bacterial wound cultures are important for characterizing local susceptibility patterns. Definitive antibiotic therapy is warranted, although there are no compelling data demonstrating superiority of any one antibiotic over another. Antibiotic choice is predicated by the infection severity, local susceptibility patterns, and drug-related safety, tolerability, and cost. Response to therapy is expected within the first days; 5 to 7 days of therapy is typically adequate to achieve cure.

Multicenter Study of the Real-World Use of Ceftaroline versus Vancomycin for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

The objective of this study was to determine if real-world ceftaroline treatment in adults hospitalized for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) is associated with decreased infection-related length of stay (LOSinf) compared to that with vancomycin. This was a retrospective, multicenter, cohort study from 2012 to 2017. Cox proportional hazard regression, propensity score matching, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to determine the independent effect of treatment group on LOSinf The patients were adults hospitalized with ABSSSI and treated with ceftaroline or vancomycin for ≥72 h within 120 h of diagnosis at four academic medical centers and two community hospitals in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, and West Virginia. A total of 724 patients were included (325 ceftaroline treated and 399 vancomycin treated). In general, ceftaroline-treated patients had characteristics consistent with a higher risk of poor outcomes. The unadjusted median LOSinf values were 5 (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7) days and 6 (IQR, 4 to 8) days in the vancomycin and ceftaroline groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.866; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.747 to 1.002). The Cox proportional hazard model (adjusted HR [aHR], 0.891; 95% CI, 0.748 to 1.060), propensity score-matched (aHR, 0.955; 95% CI, 0.786 to 1.159), and IPTW (aHR, 0.918; 95% CI, 0.793 to 1.063) analyses demonstrated no significant difference in LOSinf between groups. Patients treated with ceftaroline were significantly more likely to meet criteria for discharge readiness at day 3 in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Although discharge readiness at day 3 was higher in ceftaroline-treated patients, LOSinf values were similar between treatment groups. Clinical and nonclinical factors were associated with LOSinf.

Omadacycline: A Modernized Tetracycline

When tetracyclines were introduced in the 1940s, these antibiotics offered a broad spectrum of activity against multiple types of pathogens. However, their utility waned after the selection of tetracycline resistance in the pathogens against which they were effective. Omadacycline is a semisynthetic aminomethylcycline antibacterial derived from the tetracycline class of antibiotics that is unaffected by these resistance mechanisms. It has an appropriate spectrum of activity for community-acquired infections, including those caused by many resistant organisms. Omadacycline offers a well-tolerated treatment for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Omadacycline has minimal known drug-drug interactions, and should be administered in a fasting state, avoiding dairy and cation-containing products for at least 4 hours after dosing. It does not require dose adjustments for sex, age, or hepatic or renal impairment, and has a safety profile similar to that of other oral tetracyclines. Because omadacycline can be administered effectively orally, it can help reduce hospitalization costs associated with intravenous antibiotic administration. This special supplement to Clinical Infectious Diseases offers an in-depth examination of omadacycline development, including discussions of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic trials, spectrum of activity and preclinical data, early clinical trials, phase III clinical trials, and an integrated safety summary.

What is new in the management of skin and soft tissue infections in 2016?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are the most frequent infectious cause of referrals to emergency departments and hospital admissions in developed world, contributing to significant morbidity and healthcare expenditures. We sought to review recent literature covering epidemiology and management of SSTIs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Incidence trends of SSTIs were increasing worldwide with Staphylococcus aureus and streptococci predominating and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) posing additional challenges, because of high rates of treatment failure and relapse. Development of new antimicrobials was associated with an appraisal of regulatory definitions and endpoints. Prediction of clinical response can be very tricky, because of variable risk factors for recurrence or treatment failure, depending mostly on the host. Precise indications for new antimicrobials should be established; their integration into clinical practice algorithms may serve reduction of unnecessary admissions, overtreatment and total costs.

SUMMARY

New antimicrobials with activity against MRSA have been recently launched. Long-acting agents, mainly oritavancin and dalbavancin, provide the opportunity of single-dose treatment and early discharge. Further outpatient treatment options include new per os antibiotics such as oxazolidinones. Validated assessment tools are urgently needed to support decision-making toward rational resource utilization and delivery of optimal treatment.

Current and future trends in antibiotic therapy of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections

In 2013 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued recommendations and guidance on developing drugs for treatment of skin infection using a new definition of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infection (ABSSSI). The new classification includes cellulitis, erysipelas, major skin abscesses and wound infection with a considerable extension of skin involvement, clearly referring to a severe subset of skin infections. The main goal of the FDA was to better identify specific infections where the advantages of a new antibiotic could be precisely estimated through quantifiable parameters, such as improvement of the lesion size and of systemic signs of infection. Before the spread and diffusion of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in skin infections, antibiotic therapy was relatively straightforward. Using an empiric approach, a β-lactam was the preferred therapy and cultures from patients were rarely obtained. With the emergence of MRSA in the community setting, initial ABSSSI management has been changed and readdressed. Dalbavancin, oritavancin and tedizolid are new drugs, approved or in development for ABSSSI treatment, that also proved to be efficient against MRSA. Dalbavancin and oritavancin have a long half-life and can be dosed less frequently. This in turn makes it possible to treat patients with ABSSSI in an outpatient setting, avoiding hospitalization or potentially allowing earlier discharge, without compromising efficacy. In conclusion, characteristics of long-acting antibiotics could represent an opportunity for the management of ABSSSI and could profoundly modify the management of these infections by reducing or in some cases eliminating both costs and risks of hospitalization.

Proper use of antibiotics: situation of linezolid at the intensive care unit of the Tunisian Military Hospital

Linezolid was introduced in clinical practice in the early 2000s. It was considered to be an ideal reserve drug for treatment of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (VRE) and vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA). The aim of our study was to describe and evaluate the use of linezolid in clinical practice at the intensive care unit (ICU) of the Tunisian military hospital. This is a thirty-month retrospective study including patients treated with linezolid at the ICU of the Tunisian military hospital. Data collection was realized using the patients' medical files and prescriptions. A pharmacist conducted an extended medication history and checked if an advice from an infectious disease-physician and a microbiological documentation were requested. A total of 80 patients were included. Forty-one per cent of indications were outside the Marketing Authorization (MA) criteria, and were mainly sepsis and postoperative mediastinitis (32% and 4% of total prescriptions, respectively). This antibiotic was used as a first-line therapy in 58% of cases. The advice from an infectious-disease physician was requested for 33% of prescriptions. Only 20% of infections were documented microbiologically, of which 35% were caused by methicillin resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. Linezolid is an interesting therapeutic alternative in case of infections due to multi-resistant bacteria and/or complex clinical situations. Therefore, its prescription must be rationalized in order to slow down the emergence of resistance to this antibiotic. The high frequency of its use outside the MA criteria shows the importance of carrying out more clinical trials to evaluate its effectiveness and safety for new indications.