Search

Abstract Introduction Injection drug users (IDUs) often develop acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) and use emergency departments as their primary source for medical care. Methods A post hoc subgroup analysis of two randomized trials examined the efficacy and safety of tedizolid in the treatment of ABSSSI in IDUs. IDUs (n = 389) were identified from two pooled phase 3 trials (NCT01170221, NCT01421511) in patients with ABSSSI (n = 1333). Patients were randomly assigned to tedizolid phosphate (200 mg once daily, 6 days) or linezolid (600 mg twice daily, 10 days). Primary endpoint was ≥ 20% reduction in lesion area from baseline at 48 –72 h. Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed clinical and microbiological response at the post-therapy evaluation (PTE). Results Wound infection was more common in IDUs (52.2%), while cellulitis/erysipelas was more common in non-IDUs (55.9%). Most infections were due to Staphylococcus aureus (IDUs, 75.2%; non-IDUs, 85.6%), while oral pathogens were more prevalent in IDUs. Early clinical success rates for tedizolid and linezolid were 82.5% and 79.6% in IDUs and 81.3% and 79.3% for non-IDUs, respectively; responses at PTE were similar. Microbiological response per pathogen was similar between treatment groups. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) in IDUs were comparable between tedizolid (46.2%) and linezolid (47.8%) arms, while lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs was observed with tedizolid (20.3%) than with linezolid (25.1%). Conclusion Efficacy and safety of tedizolid and linezolid in the treatment of ABSSSI was similar in IDUs and non-IDUs, supporting the use of oxazolidinones in treating ABSSSIs in IDUs. Funding Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Donor human milk (HM) obtained at HM banks is exceptionally crucial for the feeding and treatment of preterm infants. Bacterial contaminations of HM in various stages of its handling are very common and can lead to disqualification of donations or severe infections in worse cases. Hence, HM donations are subject to strict bacteriological evaluations pre- and post-pasteurization. The main contaminating species vary between countries, banks and donors and even exhibit inter-individual variation. We initiated an assessment of the bacteriological composition of HM donated by women hospitalized in a neonatal intensive care unit in Israel. The most common bacterium identified was Staphylococcus epidermidis, found in all but one of the HM samples; the presence of several species of coagulase-negative Staphylococci was also noted. Next, we sought to develop a platform towards antibacterial treatment using Zn2+ ions that have recently been found to be potent against contaminants isolated from bovine milk. Zn2+ efficiently inhibited the growth of viable aerobic population and S. epidermidis in HM. Growth was also inhibited in other Gram-positive bacteria such as Bacillus cereus, a well-known food-borne pathogen. S. epidermidis and B. cereus cells grown in the presence of zinc were taken for microscopic evaluation, aiming to demonstrate zinc’s antimicrobial mode of action morphologically. Images obtained using scanning electron microscopy indicated leakage of cellular content and cell lysis in S. epidermidis. Besides, B. cereus cells showed abnormalities in their cell surface and complete loss of flagella upon treatment with zinc. Along with the above findings, it should be noted that this was a pilot study that tested how high doses of Zn2+ affect breast milk as a product. Further research is likely needed on the safety of consumption of Zn2+-treated HM in infants and older children.

Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections are caused mainly by Gram-positive bacteria which are often treated with intravenous vancomycin, daptomycin, or linezolid, with potential step down to oral linezolid for outpatients. Tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily treatment for six days demonstrated non-inferior efficacy, with a favourable safety profile, compared with linezolid 600 mg twice daily treatment for 10 days in the Phase 3 ESTABLISH-1 and -2 trials. The objective of the current post-hoc analysis of the integrated dataset of ESTABLISH-1 and -2 was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tedizolid (N = 182) vs linezolid (N = 171) in patients of Latino origin enrolled into these trials. The baseline demographic characteristics of Latino patients were similar between the two treatment groups. Tedizolid demonstrated comparable efficacy to linezolid at 48–72 h in the intent-to-treat population (tedizolid: 80.2% vs linezolid: 81.9%). Sustained clinical success rates were comparable between tedizolid- and linezolid-treated Latino patients at end-of-therapy (tedizolid: 86.8% vs linezolid: 88.9%). Tedizolid phosphate treatment was well tolerated by Latino patients in the safety population with lower abnormal platelet counts at end-of-therapy (tedizolid: 3.4% vs linezolid: 11.3%, p = 0.0120) and lower incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events (tedizolid: 16.5% vs linezolid: 23.5%). Population pharmacokinetic analysis suggested that estimated tedizolid exposure measures in Latino patients vs non-Latino patients were similar. These findings demonstrate that tedizolid phosphate 200 mg, once daily treatment for six days was efficacious and well tolerated by patients of Latino origin, without warranting dose adjustment. Keywords: ABSSSI, Latino ethnicity, Oxazolidinone, Tedizolid

Heart failure (HF) creates a considerable clinical, humanistic and economic burden on patients and caregivers as well as on healthcare systems. To attenuate the significant burden of HF, there is a need for enhanced management of patients with HF. The use of digital tools for remote non-invasive monitoring of heart parameters is gaining traction, and cardiac acoustic biomarkers (CABs) have been proposed as a complementary set of measures to assess heart function alongside traditional methods such as electrocardiogram and echocardiography. We conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate associations between CABs and HF outcomes. Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched for recent studies published between 2013 and 2023 that evaluated CABs in patients with HF. Additional grey literature (i.e., conference, congress and pre-print publications from January 2021 to May 2023) searches were included. Two reviewers independently examined all articles; a third resolved conflicts. Data were extracted from articles meeting inclusion criteria. Extracted studies underwent quality and bias assessments using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. In total, 3074 records were screened, 73 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 27 publications were included. Third heart sound (S3) and electromechanical activation time (EMAT) were the CABs most often reported in the literature for monitoring HF. Fifteen publications discussed changes in S3 characteristics and its role in HF detection or outcomes: six studies highlighted S3 assessment among various groups of patients with HF; four studies evaluated the strength or amplitude of S3 with clinical outcomes; five studies assessed the relationship between S3 presence and clinical outcomes; and one study assessed both S3 presence and amplitude in relation to HF clinical outcomes. Eleven publications reported on EMAT and its derivatives: five studies on the relationship between EMAT and HF and six studies on the association of EMAT and HF clinical outcomes. Studies reporting the first and fourth heart sound, left ventricular ejection time and systolic dysfunction index were limited. Published literature supported S3 and EMAT as robust CAB measures in HF that may have value in remote clinical monitoring and management of patients with HF. Additional studies designed to test the predictive power of these CABs, and others less well-characterized, are needed. This work was funded by Astellas Pharma Inc., (© 2024 The Author(s). ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP and VABP, respectively) are important for the evaluation of new antimicrobials. However, the heterogeneity in endpoints used in RCTs evaluating treatment of HABP/VABP may puzzle clinicians. The aim of this work was to reach a consensus on clinical endpoints to consider in future clinical trials evaluating antimicrobial treatment efficacy for HABP/VABP., Methods: Twenty-six international experts from intensive care, infectious diseases, and the pharmaceutical industry were polled using the Delphi method., Results: The panel recommended a hierarchical composite endpoint including, by priority order, (1) survival at day 28, (2) mechanical ventilation-free days through day 28, and (3) clinical cure between study days 7 and 10 for VABP; and (1) survival (day 28) and (2) clinical cure (days 7-10) for HABP. Clinical cure was defined as the combination of resolution of signs and symptoms present at enrollment and improvement or lack of progression of radiological signs. More than 70% of the experts agreed to assess survival and mechanical ventilation-free days though day 28, and clinical cure between day 7 and day 10 after treatment initiation. Finally, the hierarchical order of endpoint components was reached after 3 Delphi rounds (72% agreement)., Conclusions: We provide a multinational expert consensus on separate hierarchical composite endpoints for VABP and HABP, and on a definition of clinical cure that could be considered for use in future HABP/VABP clinical trials., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We evaluated the microbiological efficacy of tedizolid compared with that of linezolid against common and emerging pathogens using pooled data from 2 phase 3 trials (NCT01170221 and NCT01421511) in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Patients received tedizolid 200 mg once daily for 6 days (n = 664) or linezolid 600 mg twice daily for 10 days (n = 669). Favorable microbiological outcome in both treatment groups, defined as eradication or presumed eradication at the end of treatment and at the posttherapy evaluation, exceeded 85% for most pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Favorable microbiological response was observed for staphylococci and streptococci at tedizolid minimal inhibitory concentration values ≤0.5 mg/L and 0.25 mg/L, respectively. The studies demonstrated positive microbiological outcomes against common pathogens with a 6-day, once-daily regimen of tedizolid phosphate in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Therapeutic doses of tedizolid phosphate, an oxazolidinone antibiotic, lack monoamine oxidase inhibition in vivo, potentially resulting in an improved safety profile versus other oxazolidinones. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-period, 2-sequence, crossover, phase 1 study (NCT01577459) assessed the potential for pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between tedizolid and pseudoephedrine. Eighteen healthy volunteers (age: 18⁻45 years) were block-randomized to 1 of 2 treatment sequences containing 2 treatment periods (tedizolid phosphate or placebo once daily for 4 days; single dose of pseudoephedrine 60 mg on day 5) separated by a 2-day washout. Median time to maximum plasma concentration for tedizolid and pseudoephedrine ranged from 3 to 4 h, regardless of treatment coadministration. Steady-state tedizolid had no effect on the PK of pseudoephedrine; geometric mean ratio and 90% confidence interval remained within the no-effect 0.8 to 1.25 boundaries. The maximum observed concentration of tedizolid decreased by approximately 14% when pseudoephedrine was coadministered; no changes in the area under the plasma concentration-time curve or the minimum observed plasma concentration occurred. All adverse events (AEs) were mild, and there were no serious AEs or study drug discontinuations. No meaningful PK interactions occurred between tedizolid and pseudoephedrine, and tedizolid was well tolerated when administered in conjunction with pseudoephedrine.

Background: Antibacterials that inhibit protein synthesis may be associated with mitochondrial toxicity, manifested as serious optic or peripheral neuropathy or myelosuppression. Tedizolid is a novel oxazolidinone antibacterial that may have reduced the potential for mitochondrial toxicity., Study Question: Based on the results of 2 studies (NCT01623401 and NCT00671814) conducted early in the tedizolid development program, what is the potential for drug-induced optic and peripheral neuropathies with tedizolid treatment?, Methods: Two phase-1 studies were conducted in healthy volunteers. The first was an open-label study in which subjects received 200 mg of oral tedizolid phosphate once daily for 10 days. The second was a double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, dose-escalating (multiple-administration) study in which subjects received 200, 300, or 400 mg of oral tedizolid phosphate once daily or 600 mg of oral linezolid twice daily or oral placebo for 21 days. Overall safety and tolerability were assessed, and extensive ophthalmologic and neurologic assessments were performed in both studies., Results: In these 2 studies in healthy subjects, tedizolid administered for up to 21 days was not associated with drug-related ophthalmologic or neurologic adverse events. Incidences of adverse events involving the eye or the nervous system were generally low, and no clinically meaningful changes in ophthalmologic or neurologic test results were recorded during either study., Conclusions: Using an extensive battery of ophthalmologic tests and detailed neurologic clinical examination, there was no evidence of clinical or subclinical neurologic or ophthalmologic changes suggestive of peripheral or optic neuropathy in healthy volunteers who received therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of oral tedizolid for periods of up to 21 days.

In the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, pooled data from 2 clinical trials (N = 1333 patients) showed that programmatic and investigator-assessed early treatment success both had a high positive predictive value (94.3%-100.0%) for late clinical cure, including among hospitalized patients. The negative predictive value of programmatic early success was <20%. These exploratory findings require prospective real-world evaluation., Clinical Trials Registration:  NCT01170221; NCT01421511., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: Outcome assessments as clinical trial endpoints should be well-defined, reliable, and reflect meaningful treatment benefits. For acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) trials, recent recommendations suggest a primary endpoint of reduction in skin lesion area. Objectives were: evaluate ABSSSI lesion area measurement reliability, evaluate impact of various lesion area definitions on treatment effect size, and explore relationships between lesion area and pain., Methods: Data from two randomized, double-blinded Phase 3 trials comparing tedizolid to linezolid in ABSSSI and one open-label, non-comparative Phase 2 study of tedizolid in cellulitis/erysipelas and skin abscess were analyzed. Repeated lesion area measurements were prospectively obtained in all studies. In the open-label study, lesion area was measured by two investigators, using four different definitions. Repeated pain assessments using two patient-reported outcome instruments (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] and Faces Rating Scale [FRS]) were elicited in the randomized trials., Results: At baseline, lesion size did not correlate with pain intensity: r=0.02 for VAS and r<0.01 for FRS pain scores. However, decreasing lesion size and decreasing pain were strongly associated over time, regardless of initial lesion size or pain intensity (r=0.20 for VAS and r=0.21 for FRS scores at Day 10-13). Each lesion area definition demonstrated high inter-observer reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient>0.95)., Conclusions: Decreasing lesion area (indirect clinician-reported measure of benefit) and pain (direct patient-reported measure of benefit) were strongly associated over time, and lesion area measurements were reliable, regardless of their definition. These findings support both measures as outcome assessments in ABSSSI clinical trials., Registration: Clinicaltrials.govNCT01519778, NCT01170221, and NCT01421511., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Tedizolid is a novel oxazolidinone antibacterial. Oxazolidinones carry concerns for time-dependent myelosuppression. To further explore tedizolid's haematological tolerability, we analysed data from a 21 day study comparing safety and pharmacokinetics of tedizolid and linezolid., Methods: This was a Phase 1 study in healthy volunteers comparing five treatments (each n = 8) over 21 days: tedizolid at 200, 300 or 400 mg once daily; linezolid at 600 mg twice daily; and placebo. Routine laboratory haematological parameters (platelet, absolute neutrophil, white blood cell, red blood cell and reticulocyte counts) were compared between groups. Adverse haematological outcomes were pre-specified as any parameter below the standard lower limits of normal (LLN), substantially abnormal (<50% LLN for neutrophils; <75% LLN for other parameters) or ≥50% below baseline (platelets only). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00671814., Results: During the 21 day study period, pre-specified adverse platelet outcomes were observed in the linezolid (n = 2), tedizolid 300 mg (n = 1) and tedizolid 400 mg (n = 3) groups. Mean platelet counts decreased over time in a dose-dependent manner for tedizolid, with higher doses being similar to linezolid. The magnitude of platelet count decreases from baseline was influenced by unbound drug trough plasma concentrations, which were generally higher in subjects with at least a 20% decrease in platelet count. Substantially abnormal haematological parameters were only observed with linezolid and tedizolid 400 mg. One linezolid and two tedizolid 400 mg subjects discontinued due to meeting criteria for pre-specified adverse haematological outcomes., Conclusions: Although limited to small groups of healthy volunteers, these exploratory results support clinical study of extended treatment durations with tedizolid at 200 mg once daily., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Drug-induced prolongation of the QT interval on the electrocardiogram (ECG) infrequently results in Torsades de pointes, a potentially fatal arrhythmia. Therefore, thorough QT analysis of new drugs is a regulatory requirement. The objective of this phase 1 study was to assess the effects of oral tedizolid phosphate on the QT interval corrected with Fridericia's formula (QTcF) in healthy adult subjects. A single therapeutic dose (200 mg) and a supratherapeutic dose (1200 mg) of tedizolid phosphate were administered to characterise QTc changes following typical systemic exposure and with markedly higher exposures, respectively. This was a four-way crossover study with 48 subjects randomly assigned to receive therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of tedizolid phosphate, moxifloxacin (positive control for QT interval prolongation) and placebo (negative control). A continuous 12-lead ECG was recorded from 1 h before drug administration to 23 h after administration. Adverse events, which were generally mild, occurred most frequently with moxifloxacin or with a supratherapeutic dose of tedizolid phosphate; however, all treatments were well tolerated. This study demonstrated that therapeutic or supratherapeutic doses of the antibacterial tedizolid had no clinically significant effect on QT interval in healthy adults [ClinicalTrials.gov registration no.: NCT01461460]., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. and International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.)

Tedizolid, a novel oxazolidinone with activity against a wide range of Gram-positive pathogens, was evaluated in two noninferiority phase 3 acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection trials. The data from individual trials showed its noninferior efficacy compared to that of linezolid and a favorable tolerability profile. To evaluate potential differences, the pooled data were analyzed. The patients received 200 mg of tedizolid once daily for 6 days or 600 mg of linezolid twice daily for 10 days. Efficacy was evaluated at 48 to 72 h (primary endpoint), on days 11 to 13 (end of therapy [EOT]), and 7 to 14 days after the EOT (posttherapy evaluation). Treatment-emergent adverse events and hematologic and clinical laboratory parameters were collected. The baseline characteristics were comparable between the treatment groups: 852/1,333 (64%) patients were from North America, and the majority of infections were caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid (early clinical responses, 81.6% versus 79.4%, respectively). The early responses remained relatively consistent across various host/disease factors and severity measures. Nausea was the most frequently reported adverse event (tedizolid, 8.2%; linezolid, 12.2%; P=0.02), with onset occurring primarily during the first 6 days. Fewer tedizolid than linezolid patients had platelet counts of <150,000 cells/mm3 at the EOT (tedizolid, 4.9%; linezolid, 10.8%; P=0.0003) and during the postbaseline period through the last day of active drug visit (tedizolid, 6.4%; linezolid, 12.6%; P=0.0016). Efficacy was achieved with a 6-day once-daily course of therapy with the option of an intravenous/oral regimen, and fewer low platelet counts and gastrointestinal side effects were reported with tedizolid than with linezolid, all of which aligns well with antimicrobial stewardship principles. (These studies have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01170221 and NCT01421511.)., (Copyright © 2015, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.)

Prolonged treatment with the oxazolidinone linezolid is associated with myelosuppression, lactic acidosis, and neuropathies, toxicities likely caused by impairment of mitochondrial protein synthesis (MPS). To evaluate the potential of the novel oxazolidinone tedizolid to cause similar side effects, nonclinical and pharmacokinetic assessments were conducted. In isolated rat heart mitochondria, tedizolid inhibited MPS more potently than did linezolid (average [± standard error of the mean] 50% inhibitory concentration [IC50] for MPS of 0.31 ± 0.02 μM versus 6.4 ± 1.2 μM). However, a rigorous 9-month rat study comparing placebo and high-dose tedizolid (resulting in steady-state area under the plasma concentration-time curve values about 8-fold greater than those with the standard therapeutic dose in humans) showed no evidence of neuropathy. Additional studies explored why prolonged, high-dose tedizolid did not cause these mitochondriopathic side effects despite potent MPS inhibition by tedizolid. Murine macrophage (J774) cell fractionation studies found no evidence of a stable association of tedizolid with eukaryotic mitochondria. Monte Carlo simulations based on population pharmacokinetic models showed that over the course of a dosing interval using standard therapeutic doses, free plasma concentrations fell below the respective MPS IC50 in 84% of tedizolid-treated patients (for a median duration of 7.94 h) and 38% of linezolid-treated patients (for a median duration of 0 h). Therapeutic doses of tedizolid, but not linezolid, may therefore allow for mitochondrial recovery during antibacterial therapy. The overall results suggest that tedizolid has less potential to cause myelosuppression and neuropathy than that of linezolid during prolonged treatment courses. This, however, remains a hypothesis that must be confirmed in clinical studies., (Copyright © 2015, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.)