Linezolid versus vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: pooled analysis of randomized studies

Pharmacophore modeling, 2D-QSAR, molecular docking and ADME studies for the discovery of inhibitors of PBP2a in MRSA

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is considered to be a worldwide threat to human health and the global spread of MRSA has been associated with the emergence of different types of infections and resultant selection pressure due to exposure to many antibiotics. In the current era characterized by incessant antibiotic resistance, assessment of multiple molecular targets represents notable therapeutic opportunities in the medical and pharmaceutical industry and can aid in the discovery of novel molecules that inhibit various receptors effectively to replace the current weak antimicrobial agents. Penicillin binding protein 2a (PBP2a) of MRSA is a major determinant of resistance to β-lactam antibiotics. The activity of PBP2a is not inhibited by β-lactam antibiotics, allowing the strain to survive in the presence of β-lactams leading to resistance to β-lactam antibiotics. The study aimed at identifying potential inhibitors of PBP2a receptor of MRSA through ligand-based pharmacophore modeling, 2D-QSAR, molecular docking, ADMET screening as well as molecular dynamic (MD) simulations. The study led to the development of a satisfactory, predictive and significant 2D-QSAR model for predicting anti-MRSA activity of compounds and also led to the identification of two molecules: C21H25N7O4S2 (ChEMBL30602) and C20H17NO6S (ChEMBL304837) with favorable pharmacophore features and ADME properties with potential to bind strongly to PBP2a receptor of MRSA. MD simulation analysis showed that the interactions of C20H17NO6S (ChEMBL304837) with PBP2a over 100 ns was more stable and similar to the interaction of ceftobiprole with PBP2a and may become potential drug candidate against MRSA which has developed a lot of resistance to current antibiotics.

Management of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections: a comprehensive narrative review of available evidence focusing on current controversies and the challenges ahead

INTRODUCTION

Bloodstream infections (BSIs) caused by Staphylococcus aureus are common worldwide, representing one of the most relevant issues in clinical infectious diseases practice. In particular, BSIs by methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA-BSI) are still today a challenge since mortality burden remains elevated although decades of research.

AREAS COVERED

The following topics regarding MRSA-BSI were reviewed and discussed by resorting to best available evidence retrieved from PubMed/MEDLINE up to October 2024: i) epidemiology; ii) microbiology; iii) classification, with a focus on complicated and not complicated forms; iv) the structured approach to the patient; v) pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the main antimicrobial options; vi) controversies regarding the best therapeutic approach.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite ongoing efforts to better stratify and manage MRSA-BSI, there is no universally accepted classification system accurately distinguishing between uncomplicated/low risk and complicated/high risk forms. Biomarkers such as interleukin(IL)-10 hold promise in order to enable a more precise stratification, premise for an appropriate treatment plan. There is a theoretical rationale for implementing a combination therapy including a beta-lactam agent upfront, especially for patients considered at higher risk of unfavorable outcomes, but further data are necessary, and the same applies to newer adjuvants. Novel microbiological techniques may help in guiding antimicrobial duration.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid and exploring optimal regimens and a toxicity-related nomogram in elderly patients: a multicentre, prospective, non-interventional study

BACKGROUND

The concentrations of linezolid, its optimal regimen and the associated side effects in elderly patients remain unclear.

METHODS

In this multicentre, prospective study, elderly patients receiving linezolid at four tertiary hospitals in Beijing between May 2021 and December 2022 were included. Linezolid concentrations and haematological toxicity were monitored dynamically. Risk factors for linezolid overexposure and moderate-to-severe linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia (M/S LIT) were analysed, and a predictive model of M/S LIT was developed.

RESULTS

A total of 860 linezolid concentrations were measured in 313 patients. The median trough concentrations of linezolid were 24.4 (15.3, 35.8) mg/L at 36-72 h and 26.1 (17.0, 38.1) mg/L at 5-10 days (P = 0.132). Severe linezolid exposure was independently associated with age, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and the worst SOFA score (SOFA1), and we further recommended dose regimens for elderly patients based on these findings. The incidences of linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia(LIT) and M/S LIT were 73.5% and 47.6%, respectively. M/S LIT was independently correlated with treatment duration, average trough concentration (TDMa), baseline platelet count, eGFR and baseline SOFA score (SOFA0). The developed nomogram predicted M/S LIT with an area under the curve of 0.767 (95% CI 0.715-0.820), a sensitivity of 71.1% and a specificity of 73.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid trough concentrations increased dramatically in the elderly, by about 10 mg/L in patients aged 65-80 years, followed by a further increase of 10 mg/L for every 10 years of age. Therapeutic drug monitoring is recommended in elderly patients receiving linezolid. The developed nomogram may predict M/S LIT and guide dosage adjustments of linezolid. Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2100045707.

Oral Antibiotics for Bacteremia and Infective Endocarditis: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives

Bacteremia and endocarditis are two clinical syndromes that, for decades, were managed exclusively with parenteral antimicrobials, irrespective of a given patient's clinical condition, causative pathogen, or its antibiotic susceptibility profile. This clinical approach, however, was based on low-quality data and outdated expert opinions. When a patient's condition has improved, gastrointestinal absorption is not compromised, and an oral antibiotic regimen reaching adequate serum concentrations is available, a switch to oral antibacterials can be applied. Although available evidence has reduced the timing of the oral switch in bacteremia to three days/until clinical improvement, there are only scarce data regarding less than 10-day intravenous antibiotic therapy in endocarditis. Many standard or studied oral antimicrobial dosages are smaller than the approved doses for parenteral administration, which is a risk factor for treatment failure; in addition, the gastrointestinal barrier may affect drug bioavailability, especially when the causative pathogen has a minimum inhibitory concentration that is close to the susceptibility breakpoint. A considerable number of patients infected by such near-breakpoint strains may not be potential candidates for oral step-down therapy to non-highly bioavailable antibiotics like beta-lactams; different breakpoints should be determined for this setting. This review will focus on summarizing findings about pathogen-specific tailoring of oral step-down therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis, but will also present laboratory and clinical data about antibiotics such as beta-lactams, linezolid, and fosfomycin that should be studied more in order to elucidate their role and optimal dosage in this context.

Contemporary Management of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia-Controversies in Clinical Practice

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) carries a high risk for excess morbidity and mortality. Despite its prevalence, significant practice variation continues to permeate clinical management of this syndrome. Since the publication of the 2011 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines on management of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, the field of SAB has evolved with the emergence of newer diagnostic strategies and therapeutic options. In this review, we seek to provide a comprehensive overview of the evaluation and management of SAB, with special focus on areas where the highest level of evidence is lacking to inform best practices.

Optimal drug therapy for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia in adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Staphylococcus aureus is a significant human pathogen, causing a variety of infections, from skin and soft tissue infections to endocarditis, bone and joint infections and deep tissue abscesses. Mortality from S. aureus bacteraemia remains high, without major therapeutic advances in recent decades.

RECENT FINDINGS

In recent years, optimized dosing of antibiotics is increasingly being recognized as a cornerstone of management for severe infections including S. aureus bacteraemia. This comprehensive review details the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) targets for commonly used antistaphylococcal antibiotics and the doses predicted to achieve them in clinical practice. Recent advances in dosing of teicoplanin and use of cefazolin in CNS infections and findings from combination therapy studies are discussed. Drug exposure relationships related to toxicity are also detailed.

SUMMARY

This review details the different PK/PD targets for drugs used to treat S. aureus bacteraemia and how to apply them in various scenarios. The drug doses that achieve them, and the risks of toxicity are also provided.

Efficacy and safety of vancomycin for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vancomycin with the other anti-Gram-positive bacteria antibiotics in the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases until August 2022 for studies that compared vancomycin with other antibiotic regimens for treating Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Clinical and microbiological responses, adverse events, relapse rate and mortality were considered.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trials and nine retrospective studies were included. The efficacy and safety data of vancomycin differed from those of the comparators group. After subgroup analysis, the differences came mainly from the trials compared with daptomycin. Compared to daptomycin, vancomycin showed a lower microbiological cure rate (OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.41∼0.82, I2 = 0%, P = 0.002) and clinical cure rate (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.42∼0.68, I2 = 3%, P < 0.00001), as well as more adverse events (OR = 3.21, 95% CI = 1.43∼7.19, I2 = 59%, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of vancomycin in treating Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is still excellent but slightly inferior in adverse events. However, this does not affect its use as a first-line drug. Daptomycin is expected to be a better antimicrobial drug.

Effectiveness and Safety of Linezolid Versus Vancomycin, Teicoplanin, or Daptomycin against Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Vancomycin (VCM) and daptomycin (DAP) are standard therapies for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia, despite concerns regarding clinical utility and growing resistance. Linezolid (LZD) affords superior tissue penetration to VCM or DAP and has been successfully used as salvage therapy for persistent MRSA bacteremia, indicating its utility as a first-choice drug against MRSA bacteremia. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the effectiveness and safety of LZD with VCM, teicoplanin (TEIC), or DAP in patients with MRSA bacteremia. We evaluated all-cause mortality as the primary effectiveness outcome, clinical and microbiological cure, hospital length of stay, recurrence, and 90-day readmission rates as secondary effectiveness outcomes, and drug-related adverse effects as primary safety outcomes. We identified 5328 patients across 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 pooled analysis of 5 RCTs, 1 subgroup analysis (1 RCT), and 5 case-control and cohort studies (CSs). Primary and secondary effectiveness outcomes were comparable between patients treated with LZD versus VCM, TEIC, or DAP in RCT-based studies and CSs. There was no difference in adverse event incidence between LZD and comparators. These findings suggest that LZD could be a potential first-line drug against MRSA bacteremia as well as VCM or DAP.

Oral stepdown in Gram-positive bloodstream infections: A step in the right direction

Bloodstream infections (BSIs) due to Gram-positive organisms have traditionally been treated with prolonged courses of intravenous antimicrobials. However, this dogma is associated with substantial burden to the patient and health care system. Consequently, there is growing interest in the utilization of oral stepdown therapy, defined as the transition of intravenous therapy to an active oral agent, for this indication. This review highlights available literature examining oral stepdown in adult patients with BSI due to commonly encountered Gram-positive pathogens, including Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus spp., and Enterococcus spp. Support for oral stepdown in this setting is primarily derived from observational studies subject to selection bias. Nevertheless, this treatment strategy exhibits promising potential in carefully selected patients as it is consistently associated with reductions in hospital length of stay without jeopardizing clinical cure or survivability. Prospective, randomized trials are needed for validation of oral stepdown in Gram-positive BSI and to identify the optimal patient population and regimen.

Safety and clinical efficacy of linezolid in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of linezolid in children for treating suspected and diagnosed Gram-positive bacterial infections.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted up to April 23, 2021, using linezolid and its synonyms as search terms. Two reviewers independently identified and extracted relevant randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies. The extracted studies were included in a single-rate meta-analysis of adverse events and clinical outcomes using random-effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 1082 articles were identified, and nine studies involving 758 children were included in the meta-analysis. The overall proportion of adverse events was 8.91% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.64%-36.52%], with diarrhea (2.24%), vomiting (2.05%), and rash (1.72%) being the most common. The incidences of thrombocytopenia and anemia were 0.68% and 0.16%, respectively. Some specific adverse events, including rash and gastrointestinal events, were more frequent in the oral administration subgroup. In terms of efficacy, the overall proportion of clinical improvement was 88.80% (95% CI = 81.31%-93.52%). Children with a history of specific bacteriological diagnosis or concomitant antibiotic therapy had a 1.13-fold higher clinical improvement than children without such histories. The proportion of microbial eradication was 92.68% (95% CI = 84.66%-96.68%). The proportion of all-cause mortality was 0.16% (95% CI = 0.00%-7.75%).

CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid was well-tolerated in pediatric patients and was associated with a low frequency of adverse events, such as anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia. Moreover, linezolid was effective in children with diagnosed and suspected Gram-positive infections.

Impact of specialty on the self-reported practice of using oral antibiotic therapy for definitive treatment of bloodstream infections

Background:

No established guidelines exist regarding the role of oral antibiotic therapy (OAT) to treat bloodstream infections (BSIs), and practices may vary depending on clinician specialty and experience.

Objective:

To assess practice patterns regarding oral antibiotic use for treatment of bacteremia in infectious diseases clinicians (IDCs, including physicians and pharmacists and trainees in these groups) and non–infectious diseases clinicians (NIDCs).

Design:

Open-access survey.

Participants:

Clinicians caring for hospitalized patients receiving antibiotics.

Methods:

An open-access, web-based survey was distributed to clinicians at a Midwestern academic medical center using e-mail and to clinicians outside the medical center using social media. Respondents answered questions regarding confidence prescribing OAT for BSI in different scenarios. We used χ2 analysis for categorical data evaluated association between responses and demographic groups.

Results:

Of 282 survey responses, 82.6% of respondents were physicians, 17.4% pharmacists, and IDCs represented 69.2% of all respondents. IDCs were more likely to select routine use of OAT for BSI due to gram-negative anaerobes (84.6% vs 59.8%; P < .0001), Klebsiella spp (84.5% vs 69.0%; P < .009), Proteus spp (83.6% vs 71.3%; P < .027), and other Enterobacterales (79.5% vs 60.9%; P < .004). Our survey results revealed significant differences in selected treatment of Staphylococcus aureus syndromes. Fewer IDCs than NIDCs selected OAT to complete treatment for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) BSI due to gluteal abscess (11.9% vs 25.6%; P = .012) and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) BSI due to septic arthritis (13.9% vs 20.9%; P = .219).

Conclusions:

Practice variation and discordance with evidence for the use of OAT for BSIs exists among IDCs versus NIDCs, highlighting opportunities for education in both clinician groups.

The Novel Oxazolidinone TBI-223 Is Effective in Three Preclinical Mouse Models of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infection

Staphylococcus aureus is an important cause of various infections in humans, including bacteremia, skin and soft tissue infections, and infections associated with implanted medical devices. The emergence of hospital- and community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) underscores the urgent and unmet need to develop novel, safe, and effective antibiotics against these multidrug-resistant clinical isolates. Oxazolidinone antibiotics such as linezolid have excellent oral bioavailability and provide coverage against MRSA infections. However, their widespread and long-term use is often limited by adverse effects, especially myelosuppression. TBI-223 is a novel oxazolidinone with potentially reduced myelosuppression, compared to linezolid, but its efficacy against MRSA infections is unknown. Therefore, the preclinical efficacy of TBI-223 (80 and 160 mg/kg twice daily) was compared with that of linezolid (40 and 80 mg/kg twice daily) and sham treatment in mouse models of MRSA bacteremia, skin wound infection, and orthopedic-implant-associated infection. The dosage was selected based on mouse pharmacokinetic analysis of both linezolid and TBI-223, as well as measurement of the MICs. In all three models, TBI-223 and linezolid had comparable dose-dependent efficacies in reducing bacterial burden and disease severity, compared with sham-treated control mice. Taken together, these findings indicate that TBI-223 represents a novel oxazolidinone antibiotic that may provide an additional option against MRSA infections. Future studies in larger animal models and clinical trials are warranted to translate these findings to humans. IMPORTANCE Staphylococcus aureus is the predominant cause of bloodstream, skin, and bone infections in humans. Resistance to commonly used antibiotics is a growing concern, making it more difficult to treat staphylococcal infections. Use of the oxazolidinone antibiotic linezolid against resistant strains is hindered by high rates of adverse reactions during prolonged therapy. Here, a new oxazolidinone named TBI-223 was tested against S. aureus in three mouse models of infection, i.e., bloodstream infection, skin infection, and bone infection. We found that TBI-223 was as effective as linezolid in these three models. Previous data suggest that TBI-223 has a better safety profile than linezolid. Taken together, these findings indicate that this new agent may provide an additional option against MRSA infections. Future studies in larger animal models and clinical trials are warranted to translate these findings to humans.

Linezolid-resistance Staphylococcus aureus – Prevalence, Emerging Resistance Mechanisms, Challenges and Perspectives

Staphylococcus aureus, an opportunistic pathogen, can root several infections viz skin and tissue infections, bacteraemia, food poisoning, pneumonia, and many other clinical conditions with some variations of virulence factors. In treatment of infections, caused by this Gram-positive pathogen, several antibiotics are being used importantly Methicillin and Vancomycin. This pathogen has high capability of antibiotic resistance development and had evolved new strains such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA). Meta-analysis in Ethiopia showed that pooled prevalence of MRSA in environment, food, animal, and human was 54%, 77%, 15%, and 38% respectively (2022). Risk of MRSA isolates from burn ICU was 55 % higher (2018). In Bangladesh, 37.1% isolates from frozen meat chicken (2021) were identified as MRSA. This problem is being dealt with a novel drug called Linezolid which has been proved effective against both MRSA and VRSA. Exacerbating the situation, this pathogen has shown resistance against this unprecedented drug by means of a number of drug resistance mechanisms. Its prevalence has been reporting since the adoption of the drug, but with a minute ratio at one time/place to the very high percentage at another time/place. This inconsistent prevalence must not be ignored, and its surveillance should be augmented as antibiotic treatment is critical for fighting against microbial infections. This review highlights the worldwide reports in which Staphylococcus aureus of either wildtype or Methicillin or Vancomycin resistance that have shown resistance to Linezolid drug for the past 2 decades. At the same time where incidences of Linezolid Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (LRSA) indications are reporting, there is a call for comprehensive strategies to overcome this challenge of antibiotic resistance.

Outcomes in Patients with Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia Treated with Dalbavancin in Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

Dalbavancin is a long-acting, bactericidal, lipoglycopeptide antibiotic approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in adults, with potent activity against Gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Here we describe the clearance and clinical outcomes of patients with S. aureus bacteremia in five clinical trials of skin and skin structure infections or catheter-related bloodstream infections that evaluated the efficacy and safety of dalbavancin.

METHODS

Patients with uncomplicated S. aureus bacteremia identified in blood cultures drawn at baseline (before study drug) with at least one follow-up blood culture are described from four phase 3 trials in skin and skin structure infections and one phase 2 catheter-related infection study. Dalbavancin was administered as a single-dose (1500 mg intravenous [IV]) or a two-dose regimen (1000 mg IV on day 1, 500 mg IV on day 8). Comparators included vancomycin IV or linezolid IV/oral for 10-14 days.

RESULTS

All 39 patients (100%) who received dalbavancin, including 8 patients on the single-dose regimen, had clearance of bacteremia versus 19/20 patients (95%) treated with comparators (vancomycin or linezolid). At end of treatment, 33/36 dalbavancin-treated patients (92%) achieved clinical success versus 18/23 patients (78%) treated with comparators.

CONCLUSIONS

All 39 patients with uncomplicated S. aureus bacteremia treated with dalbavancin (single- or two-dose regimen) and with follow-up blood cultures had clearance of their bloodstream infection. Clinical response rates were similar to daily comparator therapy for 10-14 days.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DISCOVER 1, NCT01339091; DISCOVER 2, NCT01431339; DUR001-303, NCT02127970; VER001-9; VER001-4, NCT00057369.

How I manage a patient with MRSA bacteraemia

BACKGROUND

Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections are common and associated with a high mortality of 15-25%. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) bloodstream infection accounts for 10-40% of cases, and has an even higher mortality. Despite being the 'bread and butter' of clinical infectious diseases practice, robust evidence to guide optimal management is often lacking and there is wide variation in practice.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a real-world example of a case of MRSA bacteraemia and the thought processes of the authors as key management decision points are reached.

SOURCES

The discussion is based on recent literature searches of relevant topics. In making recommendations, randomized clinical trial data have been prioritized and highlighted, and where these are not available recommendations are based on the experience and opinions of the authors.

CONTENT

For a patient with MRSA bacteraemia and a primary bone and joint infection the following points are discussed: empirical antibiotic choice for suspected S. aureus bacteraemia; directed antibiotic choice for MRSA; monitoring and dosing of vancomycin; the role of combination therapy when bacteraemia is persistent; and the duration of therapy and role of switching to oral antibiotics.

IMPLICATIONS

While broad principles of aggressive source control and appropriate choice and duration of antibiotics are important, the heterogeneity of S. aureus bacteraemia means that a tailored rather than algorithmic approach to management is often required. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to strengthen the evidence base for the management of MRSA bacteraemia.

Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections: Is Linezolid or Daptomycin Favored Over Vancomycin?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections (MRSAB) cause significant mortality, and often require extended antibiotic therapy. Vancomycin, the most common initial MRSAB treatment, carries significant monitoring burden and nephrotoxicity risks. Our objective was to compare the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin and other antibiotic regimens against MRSAB.

METHODS

We estimated the cost-effectiveness of intravenous antibiotics (vancomycin, daptomycin, linezolid, ceftaroline/daptomycin) for Veterans Health Administration patients with MRSAB using an exploratory decision-tree model. Primary effectiveness outcome was composite of microbiological failure at 7 days and adverse drug event (ADE)-related discontinuation after at least 7 days.

RESULTS

In base-case analyses, intravenous linezolid was the least expensive regimen at 4 and 6 weeks. Daptomycin was more expensive and more effective than linezolid, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ~$13,000 (4 weeks) per composite failure avoided. With 6 weeks of treatment, daptomycin was more expensive and more effective than vancomycin (ICER ~$21,000 per composite failure avoided). Vancomycin and ceftaroline/daptomycin were dominated strategies at both 4 and 6 weeks. In one-way sensitivity analyses, vancomycin was favored when its microbiological failure risk was less than 20.1% (base-case: 27.2%), assuming a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $40,000/composite treatment failure avoided. In two-way sensitivity analyses, intravenous linezolid was favored if linezolid microbiological failure and ADE-related discontinuation rates were < 22.5% and < 17.3%, respectively. Daptomycin, vancomycin, and linezolid were favored in 50%, 31%, and 17% of 4-week probabilistic iterations, respectively, at $40,000 WTP.

CONCLUSION

Daptomycin is likely less expensive and more effective than vancomycin or other initial regimens for MRSAB. More data are needed on the safety of linezolid against MRSAB.

Bacterial Targets of Antibiotics in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is one of the most prevalent bacterial pathogens and continues to be a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. MRSA is a commensal bacterium in humans and is transmitted in both community and healthcare settings. Successful treatment remains a challenge, and a search for new targets of antibiotics is required to ensure that MRSA infections can be effectively treated in the future. Most antibiotics in clinical use selectively target one or more biochemical processes essential for S. aureus viability, e.g., cell wall synthesis, protein synthesis (translation), DNA replication, RNA synthesis (transcription), or metabolic processes, such as folic acid synthesis. In this review, we briefly describe the mechanism of action of antibiotics from different classes and discuss insights into the well-established primary targets in S. aureus. Further, several components of bacterial cellular processes, such as teichoic acid, aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, the lipid II cycle, auxiliary factors of β-lactam resistance, two-component systems, and the accessory gene regulator quorum sensing system, are discussed as promising targets for novel antibiotics. A greater molecular understanding of the bacterial targets of antibiotics has the potential to reveal novel therapeutic strategies or identify agents against antibiotic-resistant pathogens.

Comparison of linezolid step-down therapy to standard parenteral therapy in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections

Data supporting oral step-down therapy in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bloodstream infection (BSI) are sparse; linezolid offers potential in this setting. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of oral step-down linezolid compared with standard parenteral therapy (SPT) in MRSA-BSI. This was a retrospective cohort performed in adults receiving step-down/outpatient linezolid or SPT (vancomycin, daptomycin) for MRSA-BSI from 2011-2019. Primary outcome was 90-day infection-related re-admission (IRR) from clinical worsening/relapse or infection recurrence. 215 patients included (54 linezolid, 161 SPT). Infection sources were skin (34%), bone/joint (15%), endocarditis (13%), other (32%), multiple (6%). Patients receiving SPT more commonly had complicated bacteraemia (72% vs. 41%; P < 0.0001) and metastatic foci (45% vs. 20%; P = 0.001). 90-day IRR occurred in 17% and 26% of linezolid and SPT groups, respectively (P = 0.159). When accounting for disease severity, linezolid use was not independently associated with 90-day IRR (adjOR, 1.0, 95% CI 0.24-4.3; P = 0.986). There were no differences in all-cause 90-day mortality (4% vs. 6%, P = 0.487) or overall incidence of drug-related adverse events (AEs) (17% vs. 16%; P = 0.843) between the groups. More patients in the SPT group developed an AE requiring re-hospitalisation (12% vs. 2%; P = 0.024), most commonly line-related complications. Oral step-down linezolid demonstrated similar clinical and safety outcomes compared with SPT for MRSA-BSI, except linezolid was associated with fewer AEs requiring re-hospitalisation. Additional research is needed exploring step-down linezolid in MRSA-BSI, particularly in patients requiring shorter durations of outpatient therapy.

Fluoroquinolone versus Beta-Lactam Oral Step-Down Therapy for Uncomplicated Streptococcal Bloodstream Infections

Fluoroquinolones (FQs) are often preferred as oral step-down therapy for bloodstream infections (BSIs) due to favorable pharmacokinetic parameters; however, they are also associated with serious adverse events. The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcomes for patients who received an oral FQ versus an oral beta-lactam (BL) as step-down therapy for uncomplicated streptococcal BSIs. This multicenter, retrospective cohort study analyzed adult patients who completed therapy with an oral FQ or BL with at least one blood culture positive for a Streptococcus species from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2019. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as the lack of all-cause mortality, recurrent BSI with the same organism, and infection-related readmission at 90 days. A multivariable logistic regression model for predictors of clinical failure was conducted. A total of 220 patients were included, with 87 (40%) receiving an FQ and 133 (60%) receiving a BL. Step-down therapy with an oral BL was noninferior to an oral FQ (93.2% versus 92.0%; mean difference, 1.2%; 90% confidence interval [CI], -5.2 to 7.8). No differences were seen in 90-day mortality, 90-day recurrent BSI, 90-day infection-related readmission, or 90-day incidence of Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea. Predictors of clinical failure included oral step-down transition before day 3 (odds ratio [OR] = 5.18; 95% CI, 1.21, 22.16) and low-dose oral step-down therapy (OR = 2.74; 95% CI, 0.95, 7.90). Our results suggest that oral step-down therapy for uncomplicated streptococcal BSI with a BL is noninferior to an FQ.

Expert consensus-based clinical practice guidelines management of intravascular catheters in the intensive care unit

The French Society of Intensive Care Medicine (SRLF), jointly with the French-Speaking Group of Paediatric Emergency Rooms and Intensive Care Units (GFRUP) and the French-Speaking Association of Paediatric Surgical Intensivists (ADARPEF), worked out guidelines for the management of central venous catheters (CVC), arterial catheters and dialysis catheters in intensive care unit. For adult patients: Using GRADE methodology, 36 recommendations for an improved catheter management were produced by the 22 experts. Recommendations regarding catheter-related infections’ prevention included the preferential use of subclavian central vein (GRADE 1), a one-step skin disinfection(GRADE 1) using 2% chlorhexidine (CHG)-alcohol (GRADE 1), and the implementation of a quality of care improvement program. Antiseptic- or antibiotic-impregnated CVC should likely not be used (GRADE 2, for children and adults). Catheter dressings should likely not be changed before the 7th day, except when the dressing gets detached, soiled or impregnated with blood (GRADE 2− adults). CHG dressings should likely be used (GRADE 2+). For adults and children, ultrasound guidance should be used to reduce mechanical complications in case of internal jugular access (GRADE 1), subclavian access (Grade 2) and femoral venous, arterial radial and femoral access (Expert opinion). For children, an ultrasound-guided supraclavicular approach of the brachiocephalic vein was recommended to reduce the number of attempts for cannulation and mechanical complications. Based on scarce publications on diagnostic and therapeutic strategies and on their experience (expert opinion), the panel proposed definitions, and therapeutic strategies.

Early Oral Switch to Linezolid for Low-risk Patients With Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections: A Propensity-matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Oral switch to linezolid is a promising alternative to standard parenteral therapy (SPT) in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of all adult cases of SAB between 2013 and 2017 in a Spanish university hospital. We compared the efficacy, safety, and length of hospital stay of patients receiving SPT and those where SPT was switched to oral linezolid between days 3 and 9 of treatment until completion. We excluded complicated SAB and osteoarticular infections. A k-nearest neighbor algorithm was used for propensity score matching with a 2:1 ratio.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, we included 45 patients from the linezolid group and 90 patients from the SPT group. Leading SAB sources were catheter related (49.6%), unknown origin (20.0%), and skin and soft tissue (17.0%). We observed no difference in 90-day relapse between the linezolid group and the SPT group (2.2% vs 4.4% respectively; P = .87). No statistically significant difference was observed in 30-day all-cause mortality between the linezolid group and the SPT group (2.2% vs 13.3%; P = .08). The median length of hospital stay after onset was 8 days in the linezolid group and 19 days in the SPT group (P < .01). No drug-related events leading to discontinuation were noted in the linezolid group.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of SAB in selected low-risk patients with an oral switch to linezolid between days 3 and 9 of treatment until completion yielded similar clinical outcomes as SPT, allowing earlier discharge from the hospital.

Early Oral Antibiotic Switch for Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: Many Are Called, but Few Are Chosen

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is a complicated, high-risk disease. For selected low-risk SAB, the role of oral antibiotic stepdown therapy is unknown. Bupha-Intr et al. report a retrospective cohort of low-risk SAB patients who did well with a short duration of intravenous antibiotics, followed by an additional ∼10 days of oral antibiotics, primarily using beta-lactams. Prospective trials will help further define the efficacy of this approach.

A Narrative Review of Early Oral Stepdown Therapy for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: Yay or Nay?

Historically, intravenous (IV) antibiotics have been the cornerstone of treatment for uncomplicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB). However, IV antibiotics are expensive, increase the rates of hospital readmission, and can be associated with catheter-related complications. As a result, the potential role of oral antibiotics in the treatment of uncomplicated SAB has become a subject of interest. This narrative review article aims to summarize key arguments for and against the use of oral antibiotics to complete treatment of uncomplicated SAB and evaluates the available evidence for specific oral regimens. We conclude that evidence suggests that oral step-down therapy can be an alternative for select patients who meet the criteria for uncomplicated SAB and will comply with medical treatment and outpatient follow-up. Of the currently studied regimens discussed in this article, linezolid has the most support, followed by fluoroquinolone plus rifampin.

Therapy of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: Evidences and challenges

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is still a daily challenge for clinicians. Despite all efforts, the associated mortality and morbidity has not significantly improved in the last 20 years. The available evidence suggests that adherence to some quality-of-care indicators with regard to clinical management is important in improving the outcome of patients, but it is lower than desired in many hospitals; as such, management of patients with SAB by infectious diseases specialists has been demonstrated to contribute in the reduction of the mortality rate of these patients. In this article, the most relevant clinical studies published over the last few years evaluating the efficacy and safety of alternative drugs for the treatment of SAB are reviewed. However, classic drugs are still used in a high proportion of patients because the promising results obtained from in vivo and in vivo studies with these alternative drugs have not translated as frequently as expected into evident superiority in clinical studies. Nevertheless, some data suggest that certain alternatives may offer advantages in specific situations. Overall, an individualised and expert approach is needed in order to decide the best treatment according to the source, severity, complications, patients' features and microbiological data.

Linezolid and Rifampicin Combination to Combat cfr-Positive Multidrug-Resistant MRSA in Murine Models of Bacteremia and Skin and Skin Structure Infection

Linezolid resistance mediated by the cfr gene in MRSA represents a global concern. We investigated relevant phenotype differences between cfr-positive and -negative MRSA that contribute to pathogenesis, and the efficacy of linezolid-based combination therapies in murine models of bacteremia and skin and skin structure infection (SSSI). As a group, cfr-positive MRSA exhibited significantly reduced susceptibilities to the host defense peptides tPMPs, human neutrophil peptide-1 (hNP-1), and cathelicidin LL-37 (P < 0.01). In addition, increased binding to fibronectin (FN) and endothelial cells paralleled robust biofilm formation in cfr-positive vs. -negative MRSA. In vitro phenotypes of cfr-positive MRSA translated into poor outcomes of linezolid monotherapy in vivo in murine bacteremia and SSSI models. Importantly, rifampicin showed synergistic activity as a combinatorial partner with linezolid, and the EC₅₀ of linezolid decreased 6-fold in the presence of rifampicin. Furthermore, this combination therapy displayed efficacy against cfr-positive MRSA at clinically relevant doses. Altogether, these data suggest that the use of linezolid in combination with rifampicin poses a viable therapeutic alternative for bacteremia and SSSI caused by cfr-positive multidrug resistant MRSA.

Practice Patterns of Infectious Diseases Physicians in Transitioning From Intravenous to Oral Therapy in Patients With Bacteremia

Background

Bacteremia in adult patients has traditionally been treated with extended courses of intravenous antibiotics. Data on the use of (or rapid transition to) oral therapy are limited.

Methods

Adult infectious disease physicians participating in the Infectious Diseases Society of America Emerging Infections Network (EIN) were surveyed regarding their use of oral antibiotics in patients with bacteremia. Respondents were asked to assume that patients were hemodynamically stable, recovered bacteria were susceptible to potential antibiotics, adequate source control had been achieved, and patients had adequate gastrointestinal absorption. Variables of specific bacteria, oral agent, and associated infection were included.

Results

A total of 655 (50%) of 1321 EIN participants responded. Under certain conditions, 88% would transition patients with Gram-negative bacteremia to complete a course of therapy with oral antibiotics; 71% would transition patients with Gram-positive bacteremia to oral agents. Only 78 (12%) respondents would not treat any bacteremic patient with oral agents. Most respondents (≥75%) were comfortable treating infections secondary to Enterobacteriaceae, Salmonella, Pseudomonas, Stenotrophomonas, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and β-hemolytic streptococci with oral agents. Fewer than 20% endorsed use of oral antibiotics for Staphylococcus aureus or in cases of endocarditis. Fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole were the preferred agents in Gram-negative bacteremia; linezolid and β-lactams were the preferred agents in Gram-positive bacteremia.

Conclusions

In select circumstances, the majority of respondents would transition patients to oral antibiotics, in both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteremia. Most agreed with the use of oral agents in Gram-negative bacteremia caused by Enterobacteriaceae, but they would not use oral agents for Gram-positive bacteremia caused by S aureus or in endocarditis.

Significant Publications on Infectious Diseases Pharmacotherapy in 2018

PURPOSE

To summarize the top 10 most influential peer-reviewed infectious diseases (ID) pharmacotherapy articles published in the year 2018.

SUMMARY

Members of the Houston Infectious Diseases Network (HIDN) nominated articles that were thought to have most notably contributed to ID pharmacotherapy in 2018, including those related to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). A total of 26 articles were nominated: 22 articles pertaining to general ID pharmacotherapy and 4 articles involving HIV/AIDS. To select the most significant articles of 2018, a survey was created and distributed to members of the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) asking members to vote on their top 10 general ID publications and 1 HIV publication. Of the 462 members surveyed, 213 (46%) and 108 (23%) voted for general ID pharmacotherapy- and HIV-related articles, respectively. The top article(s) for both categories are summarized.

CONCLUSION

With the increased emphasis on antimicrobial stewardship initiatives and the growing problem of multidrug-resistant (MDR) organisms, the amount of ID literature centered on stewardship, appropriate treatment durations, and newly approved antimicrobial agents continues to expand, making it challenging for clinicians to stay informed on the most relevant publications. This review summarizes significant ID-related publications in 2018 with the goal of aiding clinicians in staying up to date on the most noteworthy publications in ID pharmacotherapy.

Transition from intravenous to oral antimicrobial therapy in patients with uncomplicated and complicated bloodstream infections

BACKGROUND

The role of oral antimicrobial agents in the management of bloodstream infections (BSI) is currently evolving.

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review summarizes and appraises clinical studies that examined transition from intravenous to oral antimicrobials or compared effectiveness of various oral agents for definitive therapy of uncomplicated and complicated BSI in adults.

SOURCES

Relevant English-language studies from MEDLINE (since inception) and presented abstracts at international scientific meetings (since 2017).

CONTENT

Emerging data suggest potential utility of oral switch strategy, particularly to oxazolidinones, as an alternative to standard intravenous therapy in low-risk patients with uncomplicated Staphylococcus aureus BSI. Moreover, results of recent randomized clinical trials are promising that combination oral regimens may play a role in antimicrobial management of complicated Gram-positive BSI, including infective endocarditis, septic arthritis and osteomyelitis. Whereas oral fluoroquinolones have been used successfully for decades in both uncomplicated and complicated Gram-negative BSI, recent studies suggest that trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and aminopenicillins represent alternative oral options in uncomplicated Enterobacteriaceae BSI. Oral azoles have been used for definitive therapy of Candida species BSI and are currently recommended by the international management guidelines.

IMPLICATIONS

Recent studies demonstrate that early transition from intravenous to oral therapy is a feasible and effective strategy in most patients with BSI due to Gram-negative bacteria, obligate anaerobic bacteria and Candida species. Oral antimicrobial combinations may be considered in select patients with complicated Gram-positive BSI after 10-14 days of intravenous therapy. Future studies will determine the role of oral agents for switch therapy in uncomplicated Gram-positive BSI.

Risk factors for vancomycin nephrotoxicity and time course of renal function during vancomycin treatment

PURPOSE

Vancomycin (VCM) is used for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Although the risk factors for VCM nephrotoxicity have been evaluated, the time course of renal function during VCM treatment is unknown. We assessed risk factors for VCM nephrotoxicity and how renal function varied over time.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients receiving intravenous VCM treatment between June 2015 and August 2017 at Tokyo Women's Medical University, Medical Center East. VCM nephrotoxicity was defined as an increase in serum creatinine levels > 50%. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to assess risk factors for VCM nephrotoxicity. The time course of renal function with VCM nephrotoxicity was compared and stratified by risk factors for VCM nephrotoxicity. Clinical course of VCM nephrotoxicity and VCM trough concentration were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 42 (17.3%) of 243 patients developed VCM nephrotoxicity. Risk factors for VCM nephrotoxicity were VCM trough concentration > 20 μg/mL and concomitant use of renal hypoperfusion medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, loop/thiazide diuretics, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). Although time course of renal function stratified by renal hypoperfusion medications was comparable, the time course of renal function significantly deteriorated in patients with loop/thiazide diuretics. Focusing on patients continuing VCM treatment, VCM nephrotoxicity recovered in 40% of the patients and VCM trough concentration improved to 10-20 μg/mL in 75% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

VCM trough concentration > 20 μg/mL and concomitant use of renal hypoperfusion medications are associated with VCM nephrotoxicity. Recovery of VCM nephrotoxicity was poor compared to the improvement of VCM trough concentration.

Diagnosis and treatment of catheter-related bloodstream infection: Clinical guidelines of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology and (SEIMC) and the Spanish Society of Spanish Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC)

Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) constitute an important cause of hospital-acquired infection associated with morbidity, mortality, and cost. The aim of these guidelines is to provide updated recommendations for the diagnosis and management of CRBSI in adults. Prevention of CRBSI is excluded. Experts in the field were designated by the two participating Societies (the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology and [SEIMC] and the Spanish Society of Spanish Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units [SEMICYUC]). Short-term peripheral venous catheters, non-tunneled and long-term central venous catheters, tunneled catheters and hemodialysis catheters are covered by these guidelines. The panel identified 39 key topics that were formulated in accordance with the PICO format. The strength of the recommendations and quality of the evidence were graded in accordance with ESCMID guidelines. Recommendations are made for the diagnosis of CRBSI with and without catheter removal and of tunnel infection. The document establishes the clinical situations in which a conservative diagnosis of CRBSI (diagnosis without catheter removal) is feasible. Recommendations are also made regarding empirical therapy, pathogen-specific treatment (coagulase-negative staphylococci, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus spp., Gram-negative bacilli, and Candida spp.), antibiotic lock therapy, diagnosis and management of suppurative thrombophlebitis and local complications.

Treatment strategies for persistent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteraemia is a long-standing challenge to health care, often complicated by metastatic infections, treatment failure and mortality. When MRSA bacteraemia persists despite adequate initial treatment, current Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend evaluation and removal of possible sources of infection. In addition, a change in therapy may be considered. The objective of this review was to explore the therapeutic options for the treatment of persistent MRSA bacteraemia.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, MEDLINE and Google Scholar was performed using the following search terms: [methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus OR MRSA] AND [bacteraemia OR bloodstream infection] AND [persistent OR persistence OR refractory OR treatment failure OR salvage] AND treatment. We evaluated relevant, adult, English-language, peer-reviewed studies published between 1985 and May 2018. In vitro and animal studies were considered as supportive of in vivo data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Randomized, controlled trials are lacking. However, case series and case reports support multiple treatment options including high-dose daptomycin in combination with an antistaphylococcal β-lactam, ceftaroline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) or fosfomycin; ceftaroline alone or in combination with vancomycin or TMP-SMX; linezolid alone or in combination with a carbapenem, or telavancin.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Given the heterogeneity of the data, a preferred regimen has not emerged. Prescribers must take into consideration recent exposure, source control, and available synergy and clinical data. Further comparative trials are needed to establish a preferred regimen and the creation of a universal treatment algorithm.

When are Oral Antibiotics a Safe and Effective Choice for Bacterial Bloodstream Infections? An Evidence-Based Narrative Review

Bacterial bloodstream infections (BSIs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Traditionally, BSIs have been managed with intravenous antimicrobials. However, whether intravenous antimicrobials are necessary for the entirety of the treatment course in BSIs, especially for uncomplicated episodes, is a more controversial matter. Patients that are clinically stable, without signs of shock, or have been stabilized after an initial septic presentation, may be appropriate candidates for treatment of BSIs with oral antimicrobials. There are risks and costs associated with extended courses of intravenous agents, such as the necessity for long-term intravenous catheters, which entail risks for procedural complications, secondary infections, and thrombosis. Oral antimicrobial therapy for bacterial BSIs offers several potential benefits. When selected appropriately, oral antibiotics offer lower cost, fewer side effects, promote antimicrobial stewardship, and are easier for patients. The decision to use oral versus intravenous antibiotics must consider the characteristics of the pathogen, the patient, and the drug. In this narrative review, the authors highlight areas where oral therapy is a safe and effective choice to treat bloodstream infection, and offer guidance and cautions to clinicians managing patients experiencing BSI.

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.

Efficacy and safety of linezolid compared with other treatments for skin and soft tissue infections: a meta-analysis

Linezolid with other treatments for skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) has been evaluated in several studies. However, the conclusions remain controversial. By searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate linezolid and other treatments for skin and soft tissue infections. The study was summarized, and the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Eleven related articles were included in the meta-analysis. Our results revealed that linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02–1.16, P_{heterogeneity} = 0.326, I² = 13.0%) and microbiological cure rates (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.01–1.16, P_{heterogeneity} = 0.089, I² = 41.7%) when comparing with vancomycin. There was no significant difference in the incidence of anemia, nausea, and mortality; however, the incidence of vomiting, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia in patients treated with linezolid is significantly higher than that with other treatments. Our study confirmed that linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs. It is recommended that linezolid be monitored for thrombocytopenia, vomiting, and diarrhea. Further studies with larger dataset and well-designed models are required to validate our findings.

Treating Central Catheter-Associated Bacteremia Due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Beyond Vancomycin

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is a frequent cause of hospital-associated infections, including central catheter-associated bacteremia. Vancomycin has been the drug of choice for treating this type of bacteremia for decades in patients who have no contraindications to the antibiotic. However, resistance to vancomycin is an emerging problem. Newer antibiotics approved by the Food and Drug Administration have activity against methicillin-resistant S aureus Some of the antibiotics also have activity against strains of S aureus that are intermediately susceptible or resistant to vancomycin. This article uses a case study to highlight the clinical signs of vancomycin failure and describes the indications for and appropriate use of alternative antimicrobials such as ceftaroline, daptomycin, linezolid, tigecycline, and telavancin. (Critical Care Nurse 2016;36[4]:46-57).

Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections: Research Priorities, Accomplishments, and Future Directions of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group

Antimicrobial resistance in gram-positive bacteria remains a challenge in infectious diseases. The mission of the Gram-Positive Committee of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) is to advance knowledge in the prevention, management, and treatment of these challenging infections to improve patient outcomes. Our committee has prioritized projects involving methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) due to the scope of the medical threat posed by these pathogens. Approved ARLG projects involving gram-positive pathogens include (1) a pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics study to evaluate the impact of vancomycin dosing on patient outcome in MRSA bloodstream infection (BSI); (2) defining, testing, and validating innovative assessments of patient outcomes for clinical trials of MRSA-BSI; (3) testing new strategies for "step-down" antibiotic therapy for MRSA-BSI; (4) management of staphylococcal BSIs in neonatal intensive care units; and (5) defining the impact of VRE bacteremia and daptomycin susceptibility on patient outcomes. This article outlines accomplishments, priorities, and challenges for research of infections caused by gram-positive organisms.

Once-Daily Treatments for Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: Are They Good Enough?

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. First-line treatment requires frequent daily doses of an anti-staphylococcal beta-lactam. However, some physicians prescribe simpler once-daily regimens to improve compliance and improve healthcare utilization. We reviewed the literature regarding advantages, pitfalls, and efficacy of once-daily treatment options for MSSA bacteremia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several once-daily antibiotics are effective in vitro against MSSA (ceftriaxone, daptomycin, telavancin, dalbavancin, oritavancin, tedizolid, ertapenem, fluoroquinolones, and others), but there is insufficient evidence to support these agents for MSSA bacteremia. Ceftriaxone may be considered for therapy completion with MSSA bacteremia from osteomyelitis, and daptomycin may be considered in patients who cannot tolerate first-line therapy. However, they have not been compared to traditional second-line agents, and their role remains uncertain. Current evidence does not support the use of once-daily treatment options for MSSA bacteremia.

Five-Year Summary of In Vitro Activity and Resistance Mechanisms of Linezolid against Clinically Important Gram-Positive Cocci in the United States from the LEADER Surveillance Program (2011 to 2015)

This report describes linezolid susceptibility testing results for 6,741 Gram-positive pathogens from 60 U.S. sites collected during 2015 for the LEADER Program. In addition, the report summarizes linezolid in vitro activity, resistance mechanisms, and molecular typing obtained for 2011 to 2015. During 2015, linezolid showed potent activity in testing against Staphylococcus aureus, inhibiting >99.9% of 3,031 isolates at ≤2 µg/ml. Similarly, linezolid showed coverage against 99.2% of coagulase-negative staphylococci, 99.7% of enterococci, and 100.0% of Streptococcus pneumoniae, virdans group, and beta-hemolytic streptococcus isolates tested. The overall linezolid resistance rate remained a modest <1% from 2011 to 2015. Staphylococci, especially Staphylococcus epidermidis, showed a range of linezolid resistance mechanisms. Increased annual trends for the presence of cfr among Staphylococcus aureus isolates were not observed, but 64.3% (9/14) of the isolates with decreased susceptibility (MIC, ≥4 µg/ml) to linezolid carried this transferrable gene (2011 to 2015). The cfr gene was detected in 21.9% (7/32) of linezolid-resistant staphylococci other than S. aureus from 2011 to 2015. The optrA gene was noted in half (2/4) of the population of linezolid-nonsusceptible Enterococcus faecalis isolates from 2011 to 2015, while linezolid-nonsusceptible Enterococcus faecium isolates showed alterations predominantly (16/16) in the 23S rRNA gene (G2576T). This report confirms a long record of linezolid activity against Gram-positive isolates in the United States since regulatory approval in 2000 and reports the oxazolidinones evolving resistance mechanisms.

Assessment of linezolid prescriptions in three French hospitals

The use of linezolid to treat gram-positive cocci infections is increasing in France. Linezolid is approved in pneumonia and complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Overuse and misuse of linezolid can favor the emergence and spreading of linezolid-resistant strains. We aimed to assess the appropriateness of linezolid use in French hospitals. This is a multicenter, retrospective study conducted in three tertiary care hospitals. Appropriateness of linezolid indications and adequacy (composite score concerning dosage, route of administration and blood monitoring) were assessed. Over a three-month period, all prescriptions of linezolid were extracted and analyzed by two independent infectious disease experts. Among the 81 initial prescriptions that were evaluated, indication was appropriate in 48% of cases. Among those, 51% complied with international guidelines. Fifty-seven percent of the prescriptions were adequate regarding dosage, route of administration and blood monitoring. Overall, 23% of prescriptions combined both appropriateness and adequacy. The most frequent reasons for inappropriateness were the possibility of choosing narrower-spectrum antibiotics and the empirical use of linezolid in severe sepsis or septic shock. Initial treatment was the most frequently appropriate in bone and joint infection cases (p = 0.001). Our study shows that even if modalities of use were mostly correct, appropriateness of linezolid indications is low. Educational programs are mandatory to improve practices, as well as clinical studies to better assess the efficacy and safety of linezolid in clinical situations other than pneumonia or complicated skin and soft tissue infections.

Two cases of serious rhabdomyolysis during linezolid treatment

Linezolid is an oxazolidinone antibiotic with activity against gram-positive organisms, particularly methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). To the best of our knowledge, there are only two case reports on rhabdomyolysis in patients treated with linezolid. Here, we describe two cases of serious rhabdomyolysis: one in a patient with septic community-acquired (CA)-MRSA pneumonia and a second case in a patient with suspected catheter-related blood stream infection.

Rare cause of back pain: Staphylococcus aureus vertebral osteomyelitis complicated by recurrent epidural abscess and severe sepsis

An epidural abscess represents a rare acute medical emergency, with a reported incidence of 2.5/10 000 hospital admissions annually. The clinical features include fever, spinal pain, radiating nerve root pain and leg weakness. When sepsis is present, prompt recognition is required to initiate appropriate antimicrobial therapy and surgical decompression. We present the case of a man aged 68 years presenting to the emergency department with a 3-day history of fever, low back, right hip and leg pain. He was hypoxic, tachycardic and hypotensive. He required intubation and ventilation. An MRI spine confirmed a posterior epidural abscess from T12 to L4. Blood cultures revealed Staphylococcus aureus He started treatment with linezolid and underwent incision and drainage. He remained septic and 8 days later, a repeat MRI spine showed a peripherally enhancing posterior epidural collection from L2/L3 to L4/L5, consistent with a recurrent epidural abscess. Further drainage was performed. He developed bilateral knee pain requiring washout. His right knee synovial biopsy cultured S. aureus He continued treatment with linezolid for 6 weeks until his C reactive protein was 0.8 ng/L. He started neurorehabilitation. 10 weeks later, he became feverish with lumbar spine tenderness. An MRI spine showed discitis of the L5/S1 endplate. A CT-guided biopsy confirmed discitis and osteomyelitis. Histology was positive for S. aureus and he started treatment with oral linezolid. After 19 days, he was discharged with 1 week of oral linezolid 600 mg 2 times per day, followed by 1 further week of oral clindamycin 600 mg 4 times daily. This case report reinforces the importance of maintaining a high clinical suspicion, with a prompt diagnosis and combined medical and surgical treatment to prevent adverse outcomes in this patient cohort. With spinal surgical services centralised, physicians may not encounter this clinical diagnosis more often in day-to-day hospital medical practice. The unique aspect of this case is the persistence and then the recurrence (despite 6 weeks of antimicrobial therapy and a second debridement) of S. aureus infection. Furthermore, the paucity of clinical recommendations and the controversy regarding the adequate duration of antimicrobial therapy are notable features of this case.

Ceftaroline as Salvage Monotherapy for Persistent MRSA Bacteremia

OBJECTIVE

To summarize published data regarding the use of ceftaroline as salvage monotherapy for persistent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed (January 1980-June 2016) was searched using combinations of the search terms methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA, bacteremia, ceftaroline, refractory, and persistent Supplemental references were generated through review of identified literature citations.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Available English-language, full-text articles pertaining to the use of ceftaroline for persistent MRSA bacteremia (MRSAB) were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The PubMed search yielded 23 articles for evaluation. There are no randomized controlled trials to date-only case series and reports. Four retrospective case series detailing the use of ceftaroline as monotherapy for persistent MRSAB were included. Most patients received at least 4 days of an appropriate anti-MRSA antimicrobial prior to ceftaroline and were able to clear bacteremia within 3 days. The most common rationales for ceftaroline use were progression of disease or nonresponse to current therapy. Higher off-label dosing of ceftaroline is often utilized to achieve optimal pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters. Adverse events are not well described due to lack of follow-up; however, neutropenia has been associated with prolonged use.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment options for persistent MRSAB remain few and far between. Ceftaroline is an effective agent for the salvage treatment of MRSAB. Off-label doses up to 600 mg every 8 hours are often used to achieve optimal pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters. Because of lack of follow-up in these reports, the incidence of adverse effects of prolonged use of ceftaroline is not well defined.

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.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: A review of the currently available treatment options

This review is the result of discussions that took place at the 5th MRSA Working Group Consensus Meeting and explores the possible treatment options available for different types of infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), focusing on those antibiotics that could represent a valid alternative to vancomycin. In fact, whilst vancomycin remains a viable option, its therapy is moving towards individualised dosing. Other drugs, such as the new lipoglycopeptides (oritavancin, dalbavancin and telavancin) and fifth-generation cephalosporins (ceftaroline and ceftobiprole), are showing good in vitro potency and in vivo efficacy, especially for patients infected with micro-organisms with higher vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs). Tedizolid is an attractive agent for use both in hospital and community settings, but the post-marketing data will better clarify its potential. Daptomycin and linezolid have shown non-inferiority to vancomycin in the treatment of MRSA bacteraemia and non-inferiority/superiority to vancomycin in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia. Thus, several options are available, but more data from clinical practice, especially for invasive infections, are needed to assign specific roles to each antibiotic and to definitely include them in the new antibacterial armamentarium.