COMPARISON OF THE CLINICAL ACTIVITY OF TWO OXAZOLIDINONES – LINEZOLID AND TEDIZOLIDE: UNJUSTIFIED EXPECTATIONS

Skin and soft tissue infections are one of the most common nosocomial infections, which are caused most often by gram-positive bacteria (staphylococci, streptococci, enterococci) with multiple drug resistance. These infections are among the major nosocomial infections in oncology clinics along with respiratory and urinary tract infections, blood flow infections, febrile neutropenia, and fevers of unknown origin.

The purpose of the study was to compare the clinical activity of two oxazolidinones: linezolid and tedizolide in patients with skin and soft tissue infections.

Material and methods. We analyzed recent publications and data available in websites: rlsnet.ru, eucast.org, and medlux.ru.

Results. Clinical trials showed that both oxazolidinones were comparable in clinical efficacy, microbiological activity, and incidence of side effects in skin and soft tissue infections caused by various resistant gram-positive microorganisms: methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Streptococcus faecalis (VRE), as well as certain streptococci. The treatment regimen of tedizolide (200 mg once daily for 6 days) was compared with linezolid regimen (600 mg twice daily for 10 days). No comparisons were made with the 6-day linezolid regimen, although the authors concluded that shorter duration of treatment with tadizolide resulted in an equal effect. In addition, the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) obtained by comparing the microbiological activity of these two agents showed the advantage of tedizolide against certain strains. However, the comparison was not made according to the EUCAST standards (Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing). Concerning the cost of both drugs, treatment with linezolidom was 2-3 times cheaper than treatment with tidezolid, even with its shorter course.

Conclusion. Thus, tedisolide was equally effective for linezolid. Data on the microbiological sensitivity of linezolid can be extrapolated to tedizolide in the absence of testing in laboratories. However, lower financial costs and wider range of microbiological activity make linezolid the drug of choice for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections caused by resistant gram-positive microorganisms.

linezolid, tedizolide, comparison of linezolid and tedizolide, skin and soft tissue infections, cancer patients, vancomycin-resistant Streptococcus faecalis, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

1. Surgical infections of the skin and soft tissues. Russian national recommendations. Moscow, 2015. 109. (in Russian).

2. Petukhova I., Victoria A., Dmitrieva N., Grigoryevskaya Z. Strategy for treatment of nosocomial infections, caused by Enterococcus spp. (Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis) in cancer patients. 28th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), 2018. E. 0006.

3. Агинова В.В. Стратегия лечения нозокомиальных инфекций, вызванных Enterococcus spp (E. faecium, E. faecalis) у онкологиче‑ ских больных. Злокачественные опухоли. 2017; 7(3-S1): 209–210. [Aginova V.V. The strategy of treatment of nosocomial infections caused by Enterococcus spp (E. faecium, E. faecalis) in cancer patients. Malignant tumors. 2017; 7 (3-S1): 209–210. (in Russian)].

4. Aginova V.V., Dmitrieva N.V., Grigorievskaya Z.V., Petukhova I.N., Bagirova N.S., Tereshchenko I.V., Klyuchnikova I.А. Rational approaches to the therapy of nosocomial infections caused by gram-positive microorganisms in cancer patients. Siberian Journal of Oncology. 2017; 16 (5): 12–17. doi: 10.21294/1814-4861-2017-16-5-1217. (in Russian).

5. Tereshchenko I.V. Treatment of nosocomial infections caused by methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in cancer patients. Malignant tumors. 2017; 7 (3-S1): 210–211. (in Russian).

6. Dmitrieva N., Petukhova I., Sydorenko S., Gostev V. Resistance to linezolid of Staphylococcus spp. strains, isolated from blood of cancer patients. 28th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), 2018. P/E 1827.

7. Wilcox M.H., Dmitrieva N., Gales A.C., Petukhova I., Al-Obeid S., Rossi F., M Blondeau J. Susceptibility testing and reporting of new antibiotics with a focus on tedizolid: an international working group report. Future Microbiol. 2017 Dec; 12: 1523–1532. doi: 10.2217/fmb-2017-0106.

8. Flanagan S., Bartizal K., Minassian S.L., Fang E., Prokocimer P. In Vitro, In Vivo, and Clinical Studies of Tedizolid To Assess the Potential for Peripheral or Central Monoamine Oxidase Interactions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013 Jul; 57 (7): 3060–6. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00431-13.

9. Shaw K.J., Poppe S., Schaadt R., Brown-Driver V., Finn J., Pillar C.M., Shinabarger D., Zurenko G. In Vitro Activity of TR-700, the Antibacterial Moiety of the Prodrug TR-701, against Linezolid-Resistant Strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008 Dec; 52 (12): 4442–7. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00859-08.

10. Prokocimer P., Bien P., Deanda C., Pillar C.M., Bartizal K. In Vitro Activity and Microbiological Efficacy of Tedizolid (TR-700) against Gram-Positive Clinical Isolates from a Phase 2 Study of Oral Tedizolid Phosphate (TR-701) in Patients with Complicated Skin and Skin Structure. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012 Sep; 56 (9): 4608–13. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00458-12.

11. Shorr A.F., Lodise T.P., Corey G.R., De Anda C., Fang E., Das A.F., Prokocimer P. Analysis of the phase 3 ESTABLISH trials of tedizolid versus linezolid in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015 Feb; 59 (2): 864–71. doi: 10.1128/AAC.03688-14.

12. Sandison T., De Anda C., Fang E., Das A.F., Prokocimer P. 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. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017 Apr 24; 61 (5). pii: e02687–16. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02687-16.

13. Prokocimer P., Bien P., De Anda C., Pillar C.M., Bartizal K. In vitro activity and microbiological efficacy of tedizolid (TR-700) against Gram-positive clinical isolates from a phase 2 study of oral tedizolid phosphate (TR-701) in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012 Sep; 56 (9): 4608–13. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00458-12.

14. Chen K.H., Huang Y.T., Liao C.H., Sheng W.H., Hsueh P.R. In Vitro Activities of Tedizolid and Linezolid against Gram-Positive Cocci Associated with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections and Pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015 Oct; 59 (10): 6262–5. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00390-15.

15. The register of medicines of Russia [Internet]. URL: https://www.rlsnet.ru (cited: May 30.05.2018).

16. Background on the availability of drugs [Internet]. URL: https://www.medlux.ru (cited: 30.05.2018). (in Russian).

17. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility TestingEUCAST 2018 [Internet]. URL: http://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints (cited 30.05.2018).