Search

Background We prospectively evaluated efficacy and safety of daptomycin versus active comparator in children with acute hematogenous osteomyelitis (AHO). Methods Randomized, controlled, double-blind, global, multicenter, phase 3 trial. Patients 1-17 years of age with suspected/confirmed AHO requiring hospitalization and intravenous therapy were randomized 1:1 to intravenous daptomycin (once-daily, age-adjusted doses) or comparator (vancomycin, nafcillin or equivalent) ≥4 days, followed by oral therapy (14-42 days total). Primary endpoint: protocol-defined clinical improvement by Day 5 in the modified intention-to-treat (MITT) population (confirmed AHO, ≥1 dose of study treatment); differences between study arms were evaluated using a prespecified 15% noninferiority margin for daptomycin. Results Seventy-three patients per arm received treatment. Pathogens were isolated from 62% of patients (83% methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, 9% methicillin-resistant S. aureus [MRSA]). Clinical improvement by Day 5 was observed in 55/71 (78%) daptomycin- and 58/70 (83%) comparator-treated MITT patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: -19.4, 7.4). This difference was not statistically significant; however, daptomycin did not meet the prespecified 15% noninferiority margin, since the lower bound of the 95% CI extended below 15%. Overall, 82% of daptomycin and 87% of comparator patients achieved clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit (secondary endpoint). More comparator patients had treatment-emergent (63% vs. 46%) and treatment-related (18% vs. 7%) adverse events. Conclusions Differences between daptomycin and comparator for the primary endpoint were not statistically significant; however, prespecified noninferiority criteria for daptomycin were not met. With insufficient cases of confirmed MRSA, we could not evaluate daptomycin for MRSA AHO. Our nonvalidated protocol design yields valuable information for implementing future trials in AHO (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01922011).

Staphylococcus lugdunensis and Staphylococcus haemolyticus are unique among CoNS in that the former often causes aggressive disease, while the latter consistently exhibits high rates of multidrug resistance. We evaluated the in vitro susceptibility of contemporary (2012–2013) isolates from both pathogens to tedizolid and comparators, using standard methodology. Results were interpreted using CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints. Overall, 106 S. lugdunensis and 103 S. haemolyticus isolates were collected from 51 medical centers in the United States and 30 centers in 18 European countries. Tedizolid showed good activity against S. lugdunensis (MIC50/MIC90: 0.12/0.12 mg/L) and S. haemolyticus (MIC50/MIC90: 0.12/0.12 mg/L), inhibiting all isolates at MIC ≤0.25 mg/L. Based on the EUCAST breakpoint for staphylococci and when substituting the CLSI breakpoint for Staphylococcus aureus, all isolates were tedizolid susceptible. All isolates were also susceptible to linezolid, but the in vitro potency of tedizolid was 4-fold greater than that of linezolid against both S. lugdunensis and S. haemolyticus, based on MIC90 values. S. lugdunensis exhibited ≥99% susceptibility to vancomycin, teicoplanin, gentamicin, levofloxacin, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; 7% of isolates were resistant to tetracycline, 11% to clindamycin, and 2% were methicillin-resistant. S. haemolyticus exhibited high rates of resistance to commonly used anti-staphylococcal agents: 71% of isolates were resistant to methicillin, 36%–37% to clindamycin, and 30%–50% to gentamicin. These in vitro findings suggest that tedizolid could be an alternative treatment option for infections due to these medically important CoNS pathogens. Additional clinical evaluation and continued surveillance of tedizolid in vitro activity against S. lugdunensis and S. haemolyticus are warranted.

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.

For effective antibacterial therapy, physicians require qualitative test results using susceptibility breakpoints provided by clinical microbiology laboratories. This article summarizes the key components used to establish the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) breakpoints for tedizolid. First, in vitro studies using recent surveillance and clinical trial isolates ascertained minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) distributions against pertinent organisms, including staphylococci, streptococci, and enterococci. Studies in animal models of infection determined rates of antibacterial efficacy and survival following administration of tedizolid phosphate at doses equivalent to those in humans. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses examined the relationship between plasma concentrations and MICs against the target organism. Finally, clinical trials assessed clinical and microbiologic outcomes by MIC. All these data were evaluated and combined to obtain the ratified CLSI susceptibility criteria for tedizolid of ≤0.5μg/mL for Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus agalactiae, and Enterococcus faecalis and ≤0.25μg/mL for Streptococcus anginosus group.

In vitro activity of tedizolid and comparators against 11,231 Gram-positive clinical isolates from the United States (84 centers) and Europe (115 centers) were summarized as part of the Surveillance of Tedizolid Activity and Resistance program between 2009 and 2013. Susceptibility testing was performed according to Clinical Laboratory and Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) interpretations were based on CLSI and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing criteria. Tedizolid inhibited 99.7% of all isolates at MIC ≤0.5 mg/L; activity was similar regardless of methicillin or vancomycin resistance phenotypes of Staphylococcus aureus and enterococci, respectively. Tedizolid MIC >1 mg/L was reported for 3 S. aureus, 4 coagulase-negative staphylococci, and 2 enterococcal isolates; all streptococci were inhibited at MIC ≤0.5 mg/L. Tedizolid was ≥4-fold more potent than linezolid against all groups, including resistant phenotypes. Tedizolid had potent/stable activity against a large, contemporary collection of Gram-positive clinical isolates, with low rates of resistance.

Immunization with the Ixodes scapularis protein, subolesin, has previously been shown to protect hosts against tick infestation and to decrease acquisition of Anaplsma marginale and Babesia bigemina. Here we report the efficacy of subolesin, a conserved tick protein that can act as a regulator of gene expression, expressed from vaccinia virus for use as an orally delivered reservoir - targeted vaccine for prevention of tick infestation and acquisition/transmission of Borrelia burgdorferi to its tick and mouse hosts. We cloned subolesin into vaccinia virus and showed that it is expressed from mammalian cells infected with the recombinant virus in vitro. We then vaccinated mice by oral gavage. A single dose of the vaccine was sufficient for mice to generate antibody response to subolesin. Vaccination with the subolesin expressing vaccinia virus inhibited tick infestation by 52% compared to control vaccination with vaccinia virus and reduced uptake of B. burgdorferi among the surviving ticks that fed to repletion by 34%. There was a reduction in transmission of B. burgdorferi to uninfected vaccinated mice of 40% compared to controls. These results suggest that subolesin has potential as a component of a reservoir targeted vaccine to decrease B. burgdorferi, Babesia and Anaplasma species infections in their natural hosts.

Lyme disease is a major human health problem which continues to increase in incidence and geographic distribution. As a vector-borne zoonotic disease, Lyme disease may be amenable to reservoir targeted strategies for control. We have previously reported that a vaccinia virus (VV) based vaccine expressing outer surface protein A (OspA) of Borrelia burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease, protects inbred strains of laboratory mice against infection by feeding ticks and clears the ticks of infection when administered by gavage. Here we extend these studies to develop an effective bait formulation for delivery of the VV based vaccine and test its characteristics under simulated environmental conditions. We show that this vaccine is efficacious in decreasing acquisition of B. burgdorferi by uninfected larval ticks as well as in decreasing transmission from infected ticks to its natural reservoir, Peromyscus leucopus, when fed to mice in oral baits. Using live, in vivo imaging techniques, we describe the distribution of vaccinia virus infection after ingestion of the baited vaccines and establish the use of in vivo imaging technology for optimization of bait delivery. In summary, a VV based OspA vaccine is stable in an oral bait preparation and provides protection against infection for both the natural reservoir and the tick vector of Lyme disease.

Background Tedizolid is a novel oxazolidinone antibacterial with potent activity against a wide range of Gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Although tedizolid is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection, commercial susceptibility testing products for tedizolid are not currently available. This study evaluated the usefulness of applying linezolid susceptibility test results as a surrogate for predicting susceptibility to tedizolid in clinically significant Gram-positive pathogens. Methods Gram-positive isolates (N = 10,702) were obtained from annual surveillance programs conducted between 2009 and 2012, from 3 tedizolid clinical trials, and from a preclinical study of the antibacterial activity of tedizolid. Susceptibility testing of linezolid and tedizolid was performed using the reference broth microdilution method in accordance with Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute methods. Results The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) distribution for tedizolid and linezolid against this set of isolates was consistent with that of previous reports. Scatter plot analysis of relevant subsets of organisms was performed and showed high categorical agreement between linezolid and tedizolid MIC results (>99% for staphylococci and streptococci; >98% for enterococci). Very major error rates (ie, tedizolid false-susceptible errors) were very low and within acceptable limits for a surrogate agent: S. aureus and other staphylococcal species, 0%; Enterococcus spp, 0.2%; and Streptococcus spp, 0%. Conclusions High categorical agreement between MIC values for tedizolid and linezolid and low very major error rates were shown for all organism groups tested, supporting the use of linezolid as a reliable surrogate for tedizolid susceptibility testing.