Linezolid and Vancomycin in Treatment of Lower-Extremity Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infections Caused by Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Patients with and without Vascular Disease

Assessing noninferiority: Evaluating efficacy of a new treatment without complete data

The FDA released the final guidance on noninferiority trials in November 2016. In noninferiority trials, validity of the assessment of the efficacy of the test treatment depends on the control treatment's efficacy. Therefore, it is critically important that there be a reliable estimate of the control treatment effect-which is generally obtained from historical trials, and often assumed to hold in the current setting (the assay constancy assumption). Validating the constancy assumption requires clinical data, which are typically lacking. The guidance acknowledges that "lack of constancy can occur for many reasons." We clarify the objectives of noninferiority trials. We conclude that correction for bias, rather than assay constancy, is critical to conducting valid noninferiority trials. We propose that assay constancy not be assumed and discounting or thresholds be used to address concern about loss of historical efficacy. Examples are provided for illustration.

Pathophysiology and burden of infection in patients with diabetes mellitus and peripheral vascular disease: focus on skin and soft-tissue infections

Diabetes mellitus affects 284 million adults worldwide and is increasing in prevalence. Accelerated atherosclerosis in patients with diabetes mellitus contributes an increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases including peripheral vascular disease (PVD). Immune dysfunction, diabetic neuropathy and poor circulation in patients with diabetes mellitus, especially those with PVD, place these patients at high risk for many types of typical and atypical infections. Complicated skin and soft-tissue infections (cSSTIs) are of particular concern because skin breakdown in patients with advanced diabetes mellitus and PVD provides a portal of entry for bacteria. Patients with diabetes mellitus are more likely to be hospitalized with cSSTIs and to experience related complications than patients without diabetes mellitus. Patients with PVD requiring lower extremity bypass are also at high risk of surgical site and graft infections. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a frequent causative pathogen in cSSTIs, and may be a significant contributor to surgical site infections, especially in patients who are colonized with MRSA on hospital admission. Patients with cSSTIs and diabetes mellitus or PVD experience lower clinical success rates than patients without these comorbidities, and may also have a longer length of hospital stay and higher risk of adverse drug events. Clinicians should be vigilant in recognizing the potential for infection with multi-drug-resistant organisms, especially MRSA, in these populations and initiating therapy with appropriate antibiotics.

Treatment of Gram-positive infections in critically ill patients

Gram-positive bacteria to include methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA), and enterococci, to include vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), display a remarkable array of resistance and virulence factors, which have contributed to their prominent role in infections of the critically ill. Over the last three decades infections with these pathogens has increased as has their overall resistance to available antimicrobial agents. This has led to the development of a number of new antibiotics for the treatment of Gram-positive bacteria. At present, it is important that clinicians recognize the changing resistance patterns and epidemiology of Gram-positive bacteria as these factors may impact patient outcomes. The increasing range of these pathogens, such as the emergence of community-associated MRSA clones, emphasizes that all specialties of physicians treating infections should have a good understanding of the infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria in their area of practice. When initiating empiric antibiotics, it is of vital importance that this therapy be timely and appropriate, as delays in treatment are associated with adverse outcomes. Although vancomycin has traditionally been considered a first-line therapy for serious MRSA infections, multiple concerns with this agent have opened the door for alternative agents demonstrating efficacy in this role. Similarly, the expansion of VRE as a pathogen in the ICU setting has required the development of agents targeting this important pathogen.

Does vancomycin have a future in the treatment of skin infections?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite concerns regarding efficacy and tolerability, vancomycin continues to be the standard treatment for skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) when β-lactam antimicrobials cannot be used. This review sought to establish the role of both old and new alternatives to vancomycin. Methods for achieving optimization of vancomycin therapy are also explored.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several meta-analyses have demonstrated poorer clinical outcomes when the vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration approaches the breakpoint of 2 μg/ml. Higher doses should be utilized to optimize pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics when higher volumes of distribution occur (e.g. sepsis). Newer agents with established noninferiority to vancomycin include the oxazolidinones linezolid and tedizolid, the lipopeptide daptomycin, the anti-meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus cephalosporin ceftaroline and the glycylcycline tigecycline. Linezolid is thus far the only agent that has been shown to be associated with better clinical and microbiological cure rates. Ceftaroline and tigecycline are broad-spectrum agents best reserved for polymicrobial infections (e.g. diabetic foot infections).

SUMMARY

When vancomycin is used for the treatment of SSTIs, maximizing the dose should be performed to improve efficacy. Cost is often the main limiting factor with regard to the newer agents, but their suitability for outpatient antimicrobial therapy may counteract this.

Treatment options for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection: Where are we now?

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection continues to be a substantial global problem with significant associated morbidity and mortality. This review summarises the discussions that took place at the 4th MRSA Consensus Conference in relation to the current treatment options for serious MRSA infections and how to optimise whichever therapy is embarked upon. It highlights the many challenges faced by both the laboratory and clinicians in the diagnosis and treatment of MRSA infections.

Treatment of infections due to resistant Staphylococcus aureus

This chapter reviews data on the treatment of infections caused by drug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, particularly methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). This review covers findings reported in the English language medical literature up to January of 2013. Despite the emergence of resistant and multidrug-resistant S. aureus, we have seven effective drugs in clinical use for which little resistance has been observed: vancomycin, quinupristin-dalfopristin, linezolid, tigecycline, telavancin, ceftaroline, and daptomycin. However, vancomycin is less effective for infections with MRSA isolates that have a higher MIC within the susceptible range. Linezolid is probably the drug of choice for the treatment of complicated MRSA skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs); whether it is drug of choice in pneumonia remains debatable. Daptomycin has shown to be non-inferior to either vancomycin or β-lactams in the treatment of staphylococcal SSTIs, bacteremia, and right-sided endocarditis. Tigecycline was also non-inferior to comparator drugs in the treatment of SSTIs, but there is controversy about whether it is less effective than other therapeutic options in the treatment of more serious infections. Telavancin has been shown to be non-inferior to vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs and pneumonia, but has greater nephrotoxicity. Ceftaroline is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin with activity against MRSA; it is non-inferior to vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs. Clindamycin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, doxycycline, rifampin, moxifloxacin, and minocycline are oral anti-staphylococcal agents that may have utility in the treatment of SSTIs and osteomyelitis, but the clinical data for their efficacy is limited. There are also several drugs with broad-spectrum activity against Gm-positive organisms that have reached the phase II and III stages of clinical testing that will hopefully be approved for clinical use in the upcoming years: oritavancin, dalbavancin, omadacycline, tedizolid, delafloxacin, and JNJ-Q2. Thus, there are currently many effective drugs to treat resistant S. aureus infections and many promising agents in the pipeline. Nevertheless, S. aureus remains a formidable adversary, and despite our deep bullpen of potential therapies, there are still frequent treatment failures and unfortunate clinical outcomes. The following discussion summarizes the clinical challenges presented by MRSA, the clinical experience with our current anti-MRSA antibiotics, and the gaps in our knowledge on how to use these agents to most effectively combat MRSA infections.

The efficacy and safety of linezolid and glycopeptides in the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections

To assess the effectiveness and safety of linezolid in comparison with glycopeptides (vancomycin and teicoplanin) for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections, we conducted a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials. A thorough search of Pubmed and other databases was performed. Thirteen trials on 3863 clinically assessed patients were included. Linezolid was slightly more effective than glycopeptides in the intent-to-treat population (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01–1.10), was more effective in clinically assessed patients (OR 95% CI: 1.38, 1.17–1.64) and in all microbiologically assessed patients (OR 95% CI: 1.38, 1.15–1.65). Linezolid was associated with better treatment in skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) patients (OR 95% CI: 1.61, 1.22–2.12), but not in bacteraemia (OR 95% CI: 1.24, 0.78–1.97) or pneumonia (OR 95% CI: 1.25, 0.97–1.60) patients. No difference of mortality between linezolid and glycopeptides was seen in the pooled trials (OR 95% CI: 0.98, 0.83–1.15). While linezolid was associated with more haematological (OR 95% CI: 2.23, 1.07–4.65) and gastrointestinal events (OR 95% CI: 2.34, 1.53–3.59), a significantly fewer events of skin adverse effects (OR 95% CI: 0.27, 0.16–0.46) and nephrotoxicity (OR 95% CI: 0.45, 0.28–0.72) were recorded in linezolid. Based on the analysis of the pooled data of randomized control trials, linezolid should be a better choice for treatment of patients with S. aureus infections, especially in SSTIs patients than glycopeptides. However, when physicians choose to use linezolid, risk of haematological and gastrointestinal events should be taken into account according to the characteristics of the specific patient populations.

An evidence-based review of linezolid for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): place in therapy

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), including community-associated and hospital-associated strains, is a major cause of human morbidity and mortality. Treatment options have become limited due to the emergence of MRSA strains with decreased sensitivity to vancomycin, which has long been the first-line therapy for serious infections. This has prompted the search for novel antibiotics that are efficacious against MRSA. Linezolid, an oxazolidinone class of antibiotic, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000 for treatment of MRSA infections. Since then, there have been a multitude of clinical trials and research studies evaluating the effectiveness of linezolid against serious infections, including pneumonia (both community- and hospital-acquired), skin and soft-tissue infections such as diabetic foot ulcers, endocarditis, osteomyelitis, prosthetic devices, and others. The primary aim of this review is to provide an up-to-date evaluation of the clinical evidence for using linezolid to treat MRSA infections, with a focus on recently published studies, including those on nosocomial pneumonia. Other objectives are to analyze the cost-effectiveness of linezolid compared to other agents, and to review the pharmokinetics and pharmacodynamics of linezolid, emphasizing the most current concepts.