Radiolabeled Tedizolid Phosphate Liposomes for Topical Application: Design, Characterization, and Evaluation of Cellular Binding Capacity

Nowadays, the incidence of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) is increasing. The increased bioavailability and reduced drug resistance of antibiotics are crucial to obtain a more effective treatment response in these infections. These favorable properties could be achieved by different drug delivery systems such as liposomes. In this study, nanosized, radiolabeled tedizolid phosphate liposomal formulations were prepared and evaluated with their in vitro cellular binding capacity and biocompatible profile for topical treatment of ABSSSI. Liposomes were characterized by evaluation of their visual inspection, particle size (about 190-270 nm), zeta potential value (around 0), and encapsulation efficiency (nearly 10%). The release rate of tedizolid phosphate from liposomes was also studied using dialysis membranes and evaluated kinetically. The stability of formulations was observed at three different temperatures and humidity conditions for 28 days. Afterward, liposomes were labeled with ^99mTc, and the optimal amount of reducing agent (stannous chloride) was determined as 500 μg in this direct labeling procedure. All liposome formulations were successfully radiolabeled with high efficiency and exhibited high radiochemical purity (> 80%) during 6 h in different media. Furthermore, the cellular bindings of liposomal formulations were evaluated in human skin fibroblast cells by measuring the radioactivity. Higher radioactivity values were obtained in CCD-1070Sk cells incubated by liposome formulations compared to sodium pertechnetate. This finding suggested that liposomal formulation increased the cellular binding of radioactivity. By the result of our study, nanosized, tedizolid phosphate encapsulated liposome formulation was found to be a favorable carrier system in the treatment of ABSSSI.

Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid Phosphate versus Linezolid in a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection

Tedizolid phosphate is approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) caused by Gram-positive bacteria in the United States, Europe, and other countries. In this multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 study, 598 adult ABSSSI patients in China, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the United States were randomized to receive 200 mg of tedizolid, intravenously (i.v.)/orally (p.o.), once daily for 6 days or 600 mg of linezolid, i.v./p.o.

Tedizolid phosphate is approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) caused by Gram-positive bacteria in the United States, Europe, and other countries. In this multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 study, 598 adult ABSSSI patients in China, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the United States were randomized to receive 200 mg of tedizolid, intravenously (i.v.)/orally (p.o.), once daily for 6 days or 600 mg of linezolid, i.v./p.o. twice daily for 10 days. The primary endpoint was early clinical response rate at 48 to 72 h. Secondary endpoints included programmatic and investigator-assessed outcomes at end-of-therapy (EOT) and posttherapy evaluation (PTE) visits. Safety was also evaluated. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, 75.3% of tedizolid-treated patients and 79.9% of linezolid-treated patients were early responders (treatment difference, –4.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], –11.2, 2.2). After exclusion of patients who never received the study drug (tedizolid, n = 8; linezolid, n = 1; modified ITT), comparable early response rates were observed (tedizolid, 77.4%; linezolid, 80.1%; treatment difference, –2.7%; 95% CI, –9.4, 3.9). Secondary endpoints showed high and similar clinical success rates in the ITT and clinically evaluable (CE) populations at EOT and PTE visits (e.g., CE-PTE for tedizolid, 90.4%; for linezolid, 93.5%). Both drugs were well tolerated, and no death occurred. Eight patients experienced phlebitis with tedizolid while none did with linezolid; hence, drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in a slightly higher proportion in the tedizolid (20.9%) arm than in the linezolid arm (15.8%). The study demonstrated that tedizolid in a primarily Asian population was an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for ABSSSI patients. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT02066402.)

Outpatient treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) with tedizolid phosphate and linezolid in patients in the United States: Subgroup analysis of 2 randomized phase 3 trials

BACKGROUND

Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) are a frequent cause of hospital admissions in the United States. Safe and effective outpatient treatments may lower ABSSSI-associated health care costs by reducing unnecessary hospital admissions. Using data from 2 phase 3 trials (ESTABLISH-1, NCT01170221; ESTABLISH-2, NCT01421511), this post-hoc analysis explored the efficacy and safety of tedizolid in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

Subgroup analysis was performed on US outpatients (defined as patients who were not in hospital at the time of treatment initiation) with ABSSSI caused by presumed or proven gram-positive pathogens. Patients were randomly assigned to receive tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily for 6 days (n = 403) or linezolid 600 mg twice daily for 10 days (n = 410). The primary end point was early clinical response (48-72 hours after the start of treatment). Secondary end points included investigator-assessed clinical response at end of therapy (EOT) and post-therapy evaluation (PTE; 7-14 days after therapy). Additional assessments included the patient-reported level of pain using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the per-pathogen favorable microbiological response rate at the PTE visit. Compliance with treatment and safety outcomes was also recorded.

RESULTS

Early clinical response was similar between treatment groups (tedizolid, 82.4%; linezolid, 79.0%), as was investigator-assessed clinical response at EOT (tedizolid, 87.1%; linezolid, 86.1%) and PTE (tedizolid, 83.1%; linezolid, 83.7%). Mean changes from baseline to days 10 to 13 in VAS scores were identical between treatment groups (tedizolid, -51.9 mm; linezolid, -51.9 mm). Microbiological eradication rates were generally similar in both treatment groups for all key pathogens. Patients in both groups had favorable response at PTE. More tedizolid-treated patients (89.3%) than linezolid-treated patients (77.3%) were compliant with treatment. The most frequently reported drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (tedizolid, 10.7%; linezolid, 13.8%), diarrhea (tedizolid, 4.5%; linezolid, 5.9%), and headache (tedizolid, 5.5%; linezolid, 4.4%). Treatment discontinuation rates were low for both treatment groups (tedizolid, 0.7%; linezolid, 1.0%).

CONCLUSION

Short-course therapy with tedizolid can successfully treat patients with ABSSSI caused by presumed or proven gram-positive pathogens in an outpatient setting.

Clinical Response of Tedizolid versus Linezolid in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections by Severity Measure Using a Pooled Analysis from Two Phase 3 Double-Blind Trials

Tedizolid phosphate is approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). In a pooled analysis of 1,333 ABSSSI patients from the ESTABLISH clinical trials, treatment with tedizolid or linezolid demonstrated similar early and posttherapy clinical responses in nonsevere and severe disease, irrespective of the parameters used to measure ABSSSI severity. Shorter 6-day treatment of ABSSSI, including those that were severe, with tedizolid phosphate demonstrated efficacy comparable to that of 10-day treatment with linezolid. (The ESTABLISH studies discussed in this paper have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifiers NCT01170221 and NCT01421511.).

Critical role of tedizolid in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

Tedizolid phosphate has high activity against the Gram-positive microorganisms mainly involved in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, such as strains of Staphylococcus aureus (including methicillin-resistant S. aureus strains and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus strains), Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus agalactiae, the Streptococcus anginosus group, and Enterococcus faecalis, including those with some mechanism of resistance limiting the use of linezolid. The area under the curve for time 0-24 hours/minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) pharmacodynamic ratio has shown the best correlation with the efficacy of tedizolid, versus the time above MIC ratio and the maximum drug concentration/minimum inhibitory concentration ratio. Administration of this antibiotic for 6 days has shown its noninferiority versus administration of linezolid for 10 days in patients with skin and skin structure infections enrolled in two Phase III studies (ESTABLISH-1 and ESTABLISH-2). Tedizolid's more favorable safety profile and dosage regimen, which allow once-daily administration, versus linezolid, position it as a good therapeutic alternative. However, whether or not the greater economic cost associated with this antibiotic is offset by its shorter treatment duration and possibility of oral administration in routine clinical practice has yet to be clarified.

Single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics and absolute bioavailability of tedizolid

Objectives

Tedizolid phosphate is a novel antibacterial under investigation for the treatment of gram-positive infections. This study was conducted to assess the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of intravenous tedizolid phosphate as well as the oral bioavailability of tedizolid phosphate.

Design

Double-blind, single-ascending dose, multiple-dose pharmacokinetics study, as well as tolerability and open-label crossover studies.

Setting

Single center in the United States (Covance Clinical Research Unit, Madison, WI) between September 2009 and January 2010.

Participants

Ninety healthy volunteers.

Intervention

Single intravenous (IV) doses of tedizolid phosphate 50 mg (lead-in) and 100–400 mg. Single oral and IV dose of tedizolid phosphate 200 mg in crossover fashion. Multiple IV doses of tedizolid phosphate 200 and 300 mg for up to 7 days.

Measurements and Main Results

A dose-dependent increase was observed in the maximum plasma concentration (1.2–5.1 μg/ml) and the area under the concentration-time curve (17.4–58.7 μg × hr/ml) of tedizolid (the microbiologically active moiety of tedizolid phosphate) after single IV doses of tedizolid phosphate 100–400 mg. Administration of IV tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once/day for 7 days resulted in minimal (28%) tedizolid accumulation. The absolute oral bioavailability of tedizolid after a single 200-mg dose of tedizolid phosphate was 91%; pharmacokinetic parameters of tedizolid were similar with oral and IV administration. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 41% of subjects. Most adverse events were related to infusion site and became more frequent with multiple dosing. In an additional 3-day tolerability study, IV tedizolid phosphate 200 mg and placebo were similarly tolerated, based on visual infusion phlebitis scores.

Conclusion

These results from a population of healthy volunteers support once/day dosing of tedizolid phosphate 200 mg with both the oral and IV formulations, without the need for dose adjustment when switching administration routes.