Potency and spectrum of garenoxacin tested against an international collection of skin and soft tissue infection pathogens: report from the SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program (1999-2004)

Calculated initial parenteral treatment of bacterial infections: Skin and soft tissue infections

This is the ninth chapter of the guideline "Calculated Parenteral Initial Therapy of Adult Bacterial Disorders - Update 2018" in the 2nd updated version. The German guideline by the Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft für Chemotherapie e.V. (PEG) has been translated to address an international audience. The chapter contains the first German S2k guidelines for bacterial skin and soft tissue infections. They encompass recommendations on diagnosis and treatment of the defined entities erysipelas (caused by beta-hämolytic streptococci), limited superficial cellulitis (S. aureus), severe cellulitis, abscess, complicated skin and soft tissue infections, infections of feet in diabetic patients ("diabetic foot"), necrotizing soft tissue infection and bite injuries.

S2k guidelines for skin and soft tissue infections Excerpts from the S2k guidelines for "calculated initial parenteral treatment of bacterial infections in adults - update 2018"

These first German S2k guidelines for bacterial skin and soft tissue infections were developed as one chapter of the recommendations for "calculated initial parenteral treatment of bacterial infections" issued under the auspices of the Paul-Ehrlich Society, of which the main part is presented here. Well-calculated antibiotic therapies require precise diagnostic criteria. Erysipelas is defined as non-purulent infection considered to be caused by beta-hemolytic strepto-cocci. It is diagnosed clinically by its bright-red erythema and early fever or chills at disease onset. Penicillin is the treatment of choice. Limited soft tissue infection (cellulitis) is usually caused by Staphylococcus (S.) aureus, frequently originates from chronic wounds and presents with a more violaceous-red hue and only rarely with initial fever or chills. Treatment consists of first- or second--generation cephalosporins or flucloxacillin (IV). Severe cellulitis is a purulent, partially necrotic infection which extends through tissue boundaries to fascias and requires surgical management in addition to antibiotics. Moreover, it frequently fulfills the criteria for "complicated soft tissue infections", as previously defined by the Food and Drug Administration for use in clinical trials (they include comorbidities such as uncontrolled diabetes, peripheral artery disease, neutropenia). It requires antibiotics which besides S. aureus target anaerobic and/or gramnegative bacteria. The rare so-called necrotizing skin and soft tissue infections represent a distinct entity. They are characterized by rapid, life-threatening progression due to special bacterial toxins that cause ischemic necrosis and shock and need rapid and thorough debridement in addition to appropriate antibiotics. For cutaneous abscesses the first-line treatment is adequate drainage. Additional antibiotic therapy is required only under certain circumstances (e.g., involvement of the face, hands, or anogenital region, or if drainage is somehow complicated). The present guidelines also contain consensus-based recommendations for higher doses of antibiotics than those approved or usually given in clinical trials. The goal is to deliver rational antibiotic treatment that is both effective and well-tolerated and that exerts no unnecessary selection pressure in terms of multidrug resistance.

Efficacy and safety of levofloxacin as a treatment for complicated urinary tract infections and pyelonephritis

INTRODUCTION

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common causes of sepsis presenting to hospitals. Treating complicated UTIs is extremely important due to their potential mortality. Levofloxacin is a fluoroquinolone antibacterial that has become one of the cornerstones of antibiotic therapy of complicated UTIs and pyelonephritis since its introduction in the 1990s because of its exceptional pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profile. However, the emergence of widespread fluoroquinolone resistance over the past decade has prompted investigators to reexamine its place in the treatment of UTI.

AREAS COVERED

This literature review summarizes data about the efficacy and the tolerability of levofloxacin in treating complicated UTIs and pyelonephritis.

EXPERT OPINION

In the early 2000s, fluoroquinolones became the most commonly prescribed antibiotic in the US. Since then, the resistance rate of Escherichia coli to fluoroquinolones has increased, largely hampering the use of this class of drugs. These data, in association with emerging data about inappropriate prescription and toxicity, have limited its clinical use. For these reasons, a judicious use of levofloxacin and other fluoroquinolones and a careful implementation of infection control procedures are the main available tools for the management of UTIs and pyelonephritis.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

BACKGROUND

The morbidity and treatment costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are high. Linezolid and vancomycin are antibiotics that are commonly used in treating skin and soft-tissue infections, specifically those infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update of this review we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 March 2015; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure, and SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. We performed subgroup analyses according to age, and whether the infection was due to MRSA.

MAIN RESULTS

No new trials were identified for this first update. We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs, including SSTIs caused by MRSA. The available evidence is at high risk of bias and is based on studies that were supported by the pharmaceutical company that makes linezolid. Further well-designed, independently-funded, RCTs are needed to confirm the available evidence.

Chinese herbal medicines for treating skin and soft-tissue infections

BACKGROUND

Skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) are common infections of the epidermis, dermis or subcutaneous tissue. SSTIs range in severity from minor, self-limiting, superficial infections to deep, aggressive, gangrenous, life-threatening infections. Some classifications divide SSTIs into 'complicated' and 'uncomplicated' infections based on clinical severity. Treatments of SSTIs involves antibiotic therapy, surgical debridement or drainage, and resuscitation if required. Sometimes these treatments are limited by high treatment costs, bacterial resistance to antibiotics and side effects, therefore, many people with SSTIs are turning to Chinese herbal medicines to treat this problem.Chinese herbal medicines are natural substances that have been used for centuries in China where they are generally considered to be effective for SSTIs. Some Chinese herbal medicines have been shown to have antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties, although a few herbal medicines have been reported to have side effects. Therefore there is a need to review the current clinical evidence systematically to inform current practice and guide future studies on Chinese herbal medicines for SSTIs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of Chinese herbal medicines for treating skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs).

SEARCH METHODS

Searches were not restricted by date, language or publication status. In July 2014 we searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; Ovid AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine); and EBSCO CINAHL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with SSTIs that compared Chinese herbal medicines with another intervention or control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the literature search results independently; there were no disagreements.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no information available from RCTs to support or refute the use of Chinese herbal medicines in treating people with SSTIs.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

BACKGROUND

The morbidity and treatment costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are high. Linezolid and vancomycin are antibiotics that are commonly used in treating skin and soft-tissue infections, specifically those infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2013 we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure, and SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. We performed subgroup analyses according to age, and whether the infection was due to MRSA.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs, including SSTIs caused by MRSA. The available evidence is at high risk of bias and is based on studies that were supported by the pharmaceutical company that makes linezolid. Further well-designed, independently-funded, RCTs are needed to confirm the available evidence.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

BACKGROUND

The morbidity and treatment costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are high. Linezolid and vancomycin are antibiotics that are commonly used in treating skin and soft-tissue infections, specifically those infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2013 we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure, and SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. We performed subgroup analyses according to age, and whether the infection was due to MRSA.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs, including SSTIs caused by MRSA. The available evidence is at high risk of bias and is based on studies that were supported by the pharmaceutical company that makes linezolid. Further well-designed, independently-funded, RCTs are needed to confirm the available evidence.

In vitro activity and microbiological efficacy of tedizolid (TR-700) against Gram-positive clinical isolates from a phase 2 study of oral tedizolid phosphate (TR-701) in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections

Tedizolid (TR-700, formerly torezolid) is the active moiety of the prodrug tedizolid phosphate (TR-701), a next-generation oxazolidinone, with high potency against Gram-positive species, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). A recently completed randomized, double-blind phase 2 trial evaluated 200, 300, or 400 mg of oral tedizolid phosphate once daily for 5 to 7 days in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. This report examines the in vitro activity of tedizolid and Zyvox (linezolid) against Gram-positive pathogens isolated at baseline and describes the microbiological and clinical efficacy of tedizolid. Of 196 isolates tested, 81.6% were S. aureus, and of these, 76% were MRSA. The MIC(50) and MIC(90) of tedizolid against both methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) and MRSA were 0.25 μg/ml, compared with a MIC(50) of 1 μg/ml and MIC(90) of 2 μg/ml for linezolid. For coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 7), viridans group streptococci (n = 15), and beta-hemolytic streptococci (n = 3), the MICs ranged from 0.03 to 0.25 μg/ml for tedizolid and from 0.12 to 1 μg/ml for linezolid. The microbiological eradication rates at the test-of-cure visit (7 to 14 days posttreatment) in the microbiologically evaluable population (n = 133) were similar in all treatment groups, with overall eradication rates of 97.7% for all pathogens, 97.9% for MRSA, and 95.7% for MSSA. The clinical cure rates for MRSA and MSSA infections were 96.9% and 95.7%, respectively, across all dose groups. This study confirms the potent in vitro activity of tedizolid against pathogenic Gram-positive cocci, including MRSA, and its 4-fold-greater potency in comparison with linezolid. All dosages of tedizolid phosphate showed excellent microbiological and clinical efficacy against MRSA and MSSA.

Efficacy of a new fluoroquinolone, JNJ-Q2, in murine models of Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae skin, respiratory, and systemic infections

The in vivo efficacy of JNJ-Q2, a new broad-spectrum fluoroquinolone (FQ), was evaluated in a murine septicemia model with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and in a Streptococcus pneumoniae lower respiratory tract infection model. JNJ-Q2 and comparators were also evaluated in an acute murine skin infection model using a community-acquired MRSA strain and in an established skin infection (ESI) model using a hospital-acquired strain, for which the selection of resistant mutants was also determined. JNJ-Q2 demonstrated activity in the MSSA septicemia model that was comparable to that moxifloxacin (JNJ-Q2 50% effective dose [ED(50)], 0.2 mg/kg of body weight administered subcutaneously [s.c.] and 2 mg/kg administered orally [p.o.]) and activity in the MRSA septicemia model that was superior to that of vancomycin (JNJ-Q2 ED(50), 1.6 mg/kg administered s.c.). In an S. pneumoniae lower respiratory tract infection model, JNJ-Q2 displayed activity (ED(50), 1.9 mg/kg administered s.c. and 7.4 mg/kg administered p.o.) that was comparable to that of gemifloxacin and superior to that of moxifloxacin. In both MRSA skin infection models, treatment with JNJ-Q2 resulted in dose-dependent reductions in bacterial titers in the skin, with the response to JNJ-Q2 at each dose exceeding the responses of the comparators ciprofloxacin, moxifloxacin, linezolid, and vancomycin. Additionally, in the ESI model, JNJ-Q2 showed a low or nondetectable propensity for ciprofloxacin resistance selection, in contrast to the selection of ciprofloxacin-resistant mutants observed for both ciprofloxacin and moxifloxacin. JNJ-Q2 demonstrated activity that was comparable or superior to the activity of fluoroquinolone or antistaphylococcal comparators in several local and systemic skin infection models performed with both S. aureus and S. pneumoniae and is currently being evaluated in phase II human clinical trials.

Cumulative clinical experience from over a decade of use of levofloxacin in community-acquired pneumonia: critical appraisal and role in therapy

Levofloxacin is the synthetic L-isomer of the racemic fluoroquinolone, ofloxacin. It interferes with critical processes in the bacterial cell such as DNA replication, transcription, repair, and recombination by inhibiting bacterial topoisomerases. Levofloxacin has broad spectrum activity against several causative bacterial pathogens of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Oral levofloxacin is rapidly absorbed and is bioequivalent to the intravenous formulation such that patients can be conveniently transitioned between these formulations when moving from the inpatient to the outpatient setting. Furthermore, levofloxacin demonstrates excellent safety, and has good tissue penetration maintaining adequate concentrations at the site of infection. The efficacy and tolerability of levofloxacin 500 mg once daily for 10 days in patients with CAP are well established. Furthermore, a high-dose (750 mg) and short-course (5 days) of once-daily levofloxacin has been approved for use in the US in the treatment of CAP, acute bacterial sinusitis, acute pyelonephritis, and complicated urinary tract infections. The high-dose, short-course levofloxacin regimen maximizes its concentration-dependent antibacterial activity, decreases the potential for drug resistance, and has better patient compliance.

Monitoring antibiotic resistance in ocular microorganisms: results from the Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring in Ocular micRorganisms (ARMOR) 2009 surveillance study

PURPOSE

To determine the antibacterial susceptibility profile of bacterial pathogens from ocular infections against relevant aminoglycoside, β-lactam, cephalosporin, chloramphenicol, fluoroquinolone, glycopeptide, lincosamide, and macrolide antibacterial agents.

DESIGN

Laboratory investigation.

METHODS

Isolates from patients with bacterial eye infections were collected prospectively by 34 institutions across the United States and were submitted to a central laboratory for inclusion in the Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring in Ocular micRorganisms (ARMOR) study. Minimum inhibitory concentrations were determined by microbroth dilution for 200 Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), 144 coagulase-negative staphylococci, 75 Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae), 73 Haemophilus influenzae (H. influenzae), and 100 Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) isolates.

RESULTS

A large proportion of S. aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci isolates were resistant to oxacillin/methicillin, azithromycin, or fluoroquinolones; 46.5% of S. aureus, 58.3% of coagulase-negative staphylococci, 9.0% of P. aeruginosa, and 9.3% of pneumococcal isolates were nonsusceptible to 2 or more antibacterial drug classes. Only 2.7% of H. influenzae isolates were nonsusceptible to 1 of the agents tested. Methicillin-resistant staphylococci were statistically more likely (all P < .0038) also to be resistant to fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides, and macrolides.

CONCLUSIONS

Resistance to 1 or more antibiotics is prevalent among ocular bacterial pathogens. Current resistance trends should be considered before initiating empiric treatment of common eye infections.

An overview of foot infections in diabetes

Patients with diabetes are prone to ulcerations of the lower extremities, frequently complicated by infection, and are then reliant upon their caregivers for preservation of their limbs without the dreaded outcome of amputation. The enormous tolls of foot infections in diabetes, in terms of both health-related quality of life issues and associated economic burdens, have only been fully realized within the last few decades, and it is anticipated that these burdens will only increase over time. Early and appropriate antibiotic treatment targeting the most likely etiologic pathogens is a cornerstone of management of foot infections in diabetes, but these decisions are now complicated by the emergence of resistant organisms, particularly methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and multidrug-resistant Gram-negative species. This review will examine the impact of foot infections in diabetes and the overall care and management of the diabetes patient with foot infection, including the potential value of emerging antibiotic therapies within the milieu of antibiotic resistance.

Treatment of skin and soft tissue infections in the elderly: A review

BACKGROUND

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) have become the second most common type of infection among persons residing in long-term care facilities.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article was to review the latest information on SSTIs among the elderly, including age-related changes, challenges, and treatment strategies in the era of emerging bacterial resistance.

METHODS

Relevant information was identified through a search of MEDLINE (1970-April 2010), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-April 2010), and Google Scholar using the terms skin and soft tissue infection, skin and skin structure infection, cellulitis, treatment guidelines, and elderly. Additional publications were found by searching the reference lists of the identified articles. Trials published since 1970 were selected for this review if they prospectively evaluated mostly adults (≥18 years of age), included >50 patients, and reported diagnostic criteria as well as clinical outcomes in patients treated for simple or complicated SSTIs.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight of 664 identified studies were selected and included in this review. A search of the literature did not identify any prospective clinical trials that were conducted exclusively in the elderly. Information on the treatment of SSTIs in the elderly was based solely on clinical studies that were conducted in adults in general. As recommended by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 2008 update, SSTIs should be suspected in elderly patients who have skin lesions and present with a decline in functional status, with or without fever. Patients who present with symptoms of systemic toxicity should be hospitalized for further evaluation. Current challenges in the management of SSTIs include the rapid emergence of community-acquired, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA), the emergence of macrolide-resistant streptococci within the past decade, and the lack of a reliable algorithm to differentiate potentially life-threatening SSTIs that require aggressive interventions and prompt hospitalization from those that can be managed in an outpatient setting. S aureus was the most common cause of SSTIs, being isolated in 42.8% (5015/11,723) of wounds, followed by streptococci. Common SSTIs in the elderly such as shingles, diabetic foot infections, infected pressure ulcers, and scabies, and their treatment were also discussed. Based on reviews of published trials, treatment of simple SSTIs generally consisted of administration of agents with activity against S aureus and Streptococcus species such as a penicillinase-resistant β-lactam, a first-generation cephalosporin, or clindamycin. Broadening of the antimicrobial spectrum to include gram-negative and anaerobic organisms should be implemented for complicated SSTIs such as diabetic foot infections and infected pressure ulcers. Local rates of MRSA, CA-MRSA, and macrolide-resistant streptococci should be considered when selecting empiric therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

A search of the literature did not identify any prospective clinical trials on the treatment of SSTIs in the elderly; therefore, it is recommended to follow treatment based on the current IDSA guidelines. More research and publications are needed to establish proper selection of antimicrobial agents, treatment strategies, and duration of therapy of SSTIs in the elderly population.

Pseudomonas skin infection: clinical features, epidemiology, and management

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a Gram-negative bacillus that is most frequently associated with opportunistic infection, but which can also present in the otherwise healthy patient. The range of P. aeruginosa infections varies from localized infections of the skin to life-threatening systemic disease. Many P. aeruginosa infections are marked by characteristic cutaneous manifestations. The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the current knowledge of cutaneous manifestations of P. aeruginosa infection with specific emphasis on clinical features and management. The ability of P. aeruginosa to rapidly acquire antibacterial resistance is an increasingly well recognized phenomenon, and the correct application of antipseudomonal therapy is therefore of the utmost importance. A detailed discussion of currently available anti-pseudomonal agents is included, and the benefits of antimicrobial combination therapy versus monotherapy are explored. Rapid clinical recognition of P. aeruginosa infection aided by the identification of characteristic cutaneous manifestations can play a critical role in the successful management of potentially life-threatening disease.

The susceptibility of dermatophytes to photodynamic treatment with special focus on Trichophyton rubrum

Owing to the accessibility of skin to light, many applications of photodynamic treatment (PDT) have been developed within dermatology. The recent increase of dermatological antimicrobial PDT investigations is related to the growing problem of bacterial and fungal resistance to antibiotics. This review focuses on the susceptibility of dermatophytic fungi, in particular Trichophyton rubrum, to PDT and shows its potential usefulness in treatment of clinical dermatophytoses. There are no data indicating significant differences in PDT susceptibility between various dermatophytes and it is unlikely that treatment problems of especially T. rubrum with current antimycotics would occur in case of PDT. Red light 5-aminolevulinic acid-mediated PDT is after repeated sessions successful in in vivo treatment of onychomycosis (fungal nail infection) caused by various dermatophytes. Regarding skin dermatophytoses, UVA-1 PDT with cationic porphyrins appears to be safe and efficient. Most effective toward T. rubrum ex vivo is 5,10,15-tris(4-methylpyridinium)-20-phenyl-[21H,23H]-porphine trichloride (Sylsens B) when combined with UVA-1 radiation or red light; this creates the possibility of efficiently treating nail infections and remaining spores in hair follicles. If the promising in vitro and ex vivo results could be transferred to clinical practice, then PDT has a good prospect to become a worthy alternative to established antifungal drugs.

Resistance and the management of complicated skin and skin structure infections: the role of ceftobiprole

Antimicrobial resistant bacteria are an increasing concern due to the resulting increase in morbidity, mortality, and health-care costs associated with the administration of inadequate or delayed antimicrobial therapy. The implications of inadequate antimicrobial therapy in complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs) have gained more attention recently, most likely due to the recent emergence of community-acquired methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and the already high prevalence of MRSA in the nosocomial setting. Due to the continuous threat of resistance arising and the limitations of currently available agents for the treatment of cSSSIs, it is necessary to develop new antimicrobials for this indication. Ceftobiprole medocaril, the prodrug of ceftobiprole, is a parental investigational cephalosporin for the treatment of cSSSIs displaying a wide-spectrum of activity against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative species, including MRSA. Ceftobiprole displays noncomplex linear pharmacokinetics, is eliminated primarily by glomerular filtration, and distributes to extracellular fluid. Additionally, it has been shown that the extent of distribution to the site of action with regard to cSSSIs, ie, the extracellular space fluid of subcutaneous adipose tissue and skeletal muscle, is expected to be efficacious, as free concentrations meet efficacy targets for most pathogens. Similar to other beta-lactams, it displays an excellent safety and tolerability profile with the primary adverse events being dysgeusia in healthy volunteers, resulting from the conversion of the prodrug to the active, and nausea in patients. Ceftobiprole has demonstrated noninferiority in two large-scale pivotal studies comparing it to vancomycin, clinical cure rates 93.3% vs 93.5%, respectively, or vancomycin plus ceftazidime, clinical cure rates 90.5% vs 90.2%, respectively. Given the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, ceftobiprole is a promising new agent for the treatment of cSSSIs and has the potential to be used as a single agent for empiric treatment.

Levofloxacin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia

Levofloxacin is a fluoroquinolone that has a broad spectrum of activity against several causative bacterial pathogens of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The efficacy and tolerability of levofloxacin 500 mg once daily for 10 days in patients with CAP are well established. Furthermore, a high-dose (750 mg), short-course (5 days) of once-daily levofloxacin has been approved for use in the USA in the treatment of CAP, acute bacterial sinusitis, acute pyelonephritis and complicated urinary tract infections. Levofloxacin can be used as a monotherapy in patients with CAP, however, levofloxacin combination therapy with anti-pseudomonal beta-lactam (or aminoglycoside) should be considered if Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the causative pathogen of the respiratory infection. The high-dose, short-course levofloxacin regimen maximizes its concentration-dependent antibacterial activity, decreases the potential for drug resistance and has better patient compliance. Oral levofloxacin is rapidly absorbed and is bioequivalent to the intravenous formulation and the patients can switch between these formulations, which results in more options with respect to the therapeutic regimens. Furthermore, levofloxacin is generally well tolerated, has good tissue penetration and adequate concentrations can be maintained at the site of infections.

In vitro antibacterial activities of JNJ-Q2, a new broad-spectrum fluoroquinolone

JNJ-Q2, a novel fluorinated 4-quinolone, was evaluated for its antibacterial potency by broth and agar microdilution MIC methods in studies focused on skin and respiratory tract pathogens, including strains exhibiting contemporary fluoroquinolone resistance phenotypes. Against a set of 118 recent clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae, including fluoroquinolone-resistant variants bearing multiple DNA topoisomerase target mutations, an MIC(90) value for JNJ-Q2 of 0.12 microg/ml was determined, indicating that it was 32-fold more potent than moxifloxacin. Against a collection of 345 recently collected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates, including 256 ciprofloxacin-resistant strains, the JNJ-Q2 MIC(90) value was 0.25 microg/ml, similarly indicating that it was 32-fold more potent than moxifloxacin. The activities of JNJ-Q2 against Gram-negative pathogens were generally comparable to those of moxifloxacin. In further studies, JNJ-Q2 exhibited bactericidal activities at 2x and 4x MIC levels against clinical isolates of S. pneumoniae and MRSA with various fluoroquinolone susceptibilities, and its activities were enhanced over those of moxifloxacin. In these studies, the activity exhibited against strains bearing gyrA, parC, or gyrA plus parC mutations was indicative of the relatively balanced (equipotent) activity of JNJ-Q2 against the DNA topoisomerase target enzymes. Finally, determination of the relative rates or frequencies of the spontaneous development of resistance to JNJ-Q2 at 2x and 4x MICs in S. pneumoniae, MRSA, and Escherichia coli were indicative of a lower potential for resistance development than that for current fluoroquinolones. In conclusion, JNJ-Q2 exhibits a range of antibacterial activities in vitro that is supportive of its further evaluation as a potential new agent for the treatment of skin and respiratory tract infections.

Antistaphylococcal activity of dihydrophthalazine antifolates, a family of novel antibacterial drugs

For a panel of 153 Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates (including 13 vancomycin-intermediate or heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate and 4 vancomycin-resistant strains), MIC(50)s and MIC(90)s of three novel dihydrophthalazine antifolates, BAL0030543, BAL0030544, and BAL0030545, were 0.03 and 0.25 microg/ml, respectively, for methicillin-susceptible strains and 0.03 and 128 microg/ml), although rates of endogenous resistance development were much lower for the dihydrophthalazines than for trimethoprim. Single-step platings of naïve staphylococci onto media containing dihydrophthalazine antifolates indicated considerable variability among strains with respect to preexistent subpopulations nonsusceptible to dihydrophthalazine antifolates.

Ceftobiprole: a novel cephalosporin with activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

Ceftobiprole is a novel broad-spectrum cephalosporin with activity against a wide range of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, including several resistant species such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. Ceftobiprole is administered intravenously as the prodrug ceftobiprole medocaril, which is almost immediately converted to the active form. It is currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is approved in Canada under the trade name Zeftera. The pharmacokinetics of ceftobiprole are non-complex as it displays a two-compartment model, dose proportionality, linear plasma protein binding and negligible accumulation. The volume of distribution is approximately equal to the extracellular fluid volume and it is cleared primarily by glomerular filtration, resulting in a half-life of approximately 3-4h. Ceftobiprole displays a low plasma protein binding of approximately 22%. The efficacy of ceftobiprole was demonstrated in two pivotal studies in patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections (cSSSIs) that compared ceftobiprole with vancomycin in Gram-positive infections in one study and ceftobiprole with vancomycin plus ceftazidime in Gram-positive and Gram-negative infections in the other. The clinical cure rates were similar for ceftobiprole vs. comparator treatments: 93.3% vs. 93.5% with vancomycin only and 90.5% vs. 90.2% with vancomycin plus ceftazidime. The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile supports the use of ceftobiprole to treat a wide range of cSSSIs.

Levofloxacin : a review of its use as a high-dose, short-course treatment for bacterial infection

Levofloxacin (Levaquin) is a fluoroquinolone antibacterial that is the L-isomer of ofloxacin. A high-dose (750 mg) short-course (5 days) of once-daily levofloxacin is approved for use in the US in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS), complicated urinary tract infections (UTI) and acute pyelonephritis (AP). The broad spectrum antibacterial profile of levofloxacin means that monotherapy is often a possibility in patients with CAP at times when other agents may require combination therapy, although levofloxacin can be used in combination therapy when necessary. The high-dose, short-course levofloxacin regimen maximizes its concentration-dependent bactericidal activity and may reduce the potential for resistance to emerge. In addition, this regimen lends itself to better compliance because of the shorter duration of treatment and the convenient once-daily administration schedule. Oral levofloxacin is rapidly absorbed and is bioequivalent to the intravenous formulation; importantly, patients can transition between the formulations, which results in more options in regards to the treatment regimen and the potential for patients with varying degrees of illness to be treated. Levofloxacin has good tissue penetration and an adequate concentration can be maintained in the urinary tract to treat uropathogens. Levofloxacin is generally well tolerated and has good efficacy in the treatment of patients with CAP, ABS, complicated UTI and AP. The efficacy and tolerability of levofloxacin 500 mg once daily for 10 days in patients with CAP, ABS and UTIs is well established, and the high-dose, short-course levofloxacin regimen has been shown to be noninferior to the 10-day regimen in CAP and ABS, and to have a similar tolerability profile. Similarly, the high-dose, short-course levofloxacin regimen is noninferior to ciprofloxacin in patients with complicated UTI or AP. Thus, levofloxacin is a valuable antimicrobial agent that has activity against a wide range of bacterial pathogens; however, its use should be considered carefully so that the potential for resistance selection can be minimized and its usefulness in severe infections and against a range of penicillin- and macrolide-resistant pathogens can be maintained.