Comparison of the microbiological efficacy of tedizolid and linezolid in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: pooled data from phase 3 clinical trials.

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.

Elaboration of Consensus Clinical Endpoints to Evaluate Antimicrobial Treatment Efficacy in Future Hospital-acquired/Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia Clinical Trials.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid and Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections in Injection Drug Users: Analysis of Two Clinical Trials.

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.

Pharmacokinetics of Tedizolid and Pseudoephedrine Administered Alone or in Combination in Healthy Volunteers.

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.

Clinical safety and tolerability of tedizolid phosphate in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated safety and tolerability of tedizolid phosphate at the 200-mg once-daily dose approved for 6-day treatment of skin and skin-structure infections. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Clinical adverse event (AE) and laboratory data were pooled across completed clinical studies (13 phase 1, two phase 2, and two phase 3), for all participants who received ≥1 dose of tedizolid 200 mg, linezolid 600 mg (phase 3 only), or placebo (phase 1 only). RESULTS: 1280 participants received tedizolid (phase 1: n = 355; phase 2/3: n = 925). In total, 13% received >6 doses of tedizolid (range: 7-21); in phase 2/3, 94% of participants received ≥5 doses (range: 5-10). Drug-related AEs occurred in 27% of participants (most commonly gastrointestinal reactions in 13% of participants and headache in 4%). Most AEs were mild-moderate in severity; <1% of participants discontinued treatment due to AEs. Tedizolid and linezolid had similar frequency, severity, and types of drug-related AEs. Tolerability in clinically important subpopulations (obese, n = 346; elderly, n = 99; renal impairment, n = 40; hepatic disease/impairment, n = 294) appeared comparable to the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Tedizolid, given orally or intravenously at 200 mg, has a favorable safety profile. Clinical trial and postmarketing experience with treatment ≥7 days is limited.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Tedizolid Phosphate in Elderly Subjects.

Tedizolid phosphate is approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in adults. We evaluated the pharmacokinetics of tedizolid in elderly subjects to guide dosing recommendations. In an open-label phase 1 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01496677), 14 elderly (≥65 years) and 14 younger control (18-45 years) subjects each received a single oral dose of tedizolid phosphate 200 mg. Blood samples were collected before dose and more than 72 hours after dose. The pharmacokinetic parameters of tedizolid after a single dose were similar in both age groups. Geometric mean ratios (elderly/younger controls) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals were maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax ), 1.091 (0.917-1.297); AUC from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞ ), 1.132 (0.954-1.343). Tedizolid plasma exposure was similar in elderly and younger control subjects. The findings indicated that after intravenous or oral administration of tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily, no dose adjustment was warranted in elderly subjects to achieve therapeutic levels.

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.).

Characterization of Neurologic and Ophthalmologic Safety of Oral Administration of Tedizolid for Up to 21 Days in Healthy Volunteers.

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.

Tedizolid and Linezolid for Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections of the Lower Extremity versus Non-Lower-Extremity InfectionsPooled Analysis of Two Phase 3 Trials.

BACKGROUND: Tedizolid phosphate, the prodrug of the oxazolidinone tedizolid, has been approved in a number of countries, including the United States, those in the European Union, and Canada, for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Two phase 3 trials demonstrated the noninferior efficacy of tedizolid (200 mg once daily for 6 days) to linezolid (600 mg twice daily for 10 days) in patients with ABSSSI. Because of the challenges of treating lower-extremity ABSSSI, the efficacy and safety of tedizolid and linezolid for treating lower-extremity versus non-lower-extremity infections were compared. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from patients with lower-extremity infections enrolled in two phase 3 studies, ESTABLISH-1 (NCT01170221) and ESTABLISH-2 (NCT01421511), comparing tedizolid to linezolid in patients with ABSSSI. RESULTS: Lower-extremity ABSSSI were present in 40.7% of tedizolid-treated and 42.2% of linezolid-treated patients. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was present in 34.7% of all patients with a baseline causative pathogen. Early clinical responses at 48 to 72 hours and investigator-assessed responses at the post-therapy evaluation were similar between tedizolid and linezolid, regardless of ABSSSI type. With both treatments, the early clinical response was slightly higher in patients with non-lower-extremity infection than in those with lower-extremity ABSSSI (tedizolid, 84.8% versus 77.0%; linezolid, 81.4% versus 76.6%, respectively); however, by the post-therapy evaluation visit, response rates were similar (tedizolid, 87.1% versus 86.3%; linezolid, 86.6% versus 87.2%, respectively). Gastrointestinal adverse events and low platelet counts were observed more frequently with linezolid treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Post-therapy evaluations showed that the clinical response of lower-extremity ABSSSI to tedizolid and linezolid was comparable to that of ABSSSI in other locations. A short 6-day course of once-daily tedizolid was as effective as a 10-day course of twice-daily linezolid in treating patients with lower-extremity ABSSSI.

Early Clinical Response as a Predictor of Late Treatment Success in Patients With Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: Retrospective Analysis of 2 Randomized Controlled Trials.

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.

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.

Clinician-reported lesion measurements in skin infection trials: Definitions, reliability, and association with patient-reported pain.

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.

Effects of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of oral tedizolid phosphate on cardiac repolarisation in healthy volunteers: a randomised controlled study.

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].

Characterization of the haematological profile of 21 days of tedizolid in healthy subjects.

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.

Efficacy, safety, tolerability and population pharmacokinetics of tedizolid, a novel antibiotic, in Latino patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

Abstract 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.

Efficacy, safety, tolerability and population pharmacokinetics of tedizolid, a novel antibiotic, in Latino patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

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 200mg once daily treatment for six days demonstrated non-inferior efficacy, with a favourable safety profile, compared with linezolid 600mg 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 48-72h 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 200mg, once daily treatment for six days was efficacious and well tolerated by patients of Latino origin, without warranting dose adjustment.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety and Tolerability of Single Oral or Intravenous Administration of 200 mg Tedizolid Phosphate in Adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Tedizolid is a novel oxazolidinone antibacterial US FDA approved for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in adults. This study assessed the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of tedizolid phosphate in adolescents (12-17 years old) after administration of a single intravenous (IV) or oral dose. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label study, a single IV infusion (N = 10) or oral dose (N = 10) of 200 mg tedizolid phosphate was administered to adolescents already receiving antibacterial treatment for presumed or documented infection. Blood and urine samples were collected predose and over 24 hours. RESULTS: Tedizolid pharmacokinetics was generally similar after IV or oral administration of 200 mg tedizolid phosphate. Mean (standard deviation) half-life values were similar for oral and IV routes, 8.3 (2.0) and 6.6 (0.7) hours, respectively. Absolute oral bioavailability of tedizolid (90% confidence interval) was 88.8% (70.4%-112.1%). Geometric mean ratio (90% confidence interval) of area under the concentration-time curve values for adolescents relative to values previously reported for adults after 200 mg of single-dose IV or oral administration were 0.847 (0.736-0.975). Tedizolid was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Overall pharmacokinetics of tedizolid was similar after administration of a single oral or IV 200 mg dose, and bioavailability was high. Exposure profiles were similar to those in adults. With clinical outcomes based on area under the concentration-time curve/minimum inhibitory concentration and current susceptibility of Gram-positive pathogens, results suggest that the 200 mg daily regimen of tedizolid phosphate can be extended to adolescents for clinical trials, and that dose adjustment may not be required when switching routes.