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.

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.

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.

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.

Analysis of the phase 3 ESTABLISH trials of tedizolid versus linezolid in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

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.).

Nonclinical and pharmacokinetic assessments to evaluate the potential of tedizolid and linezolid to affect mitochondrial function.

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.

Tedizolid phosphate for the management of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: safety summary.

The novel oxazolidinone tedizolid phosphate is in late-stage clinical development. In an effort to improve efficacy and safety, the adverse event profile and safety aspects of tedizolid phosphate have been evaluated in several preclinical animal models and through ongoing clinical trials. Early dose-ranging studies demonstrated a favorable overall adverse event profile and low thrombocytopenia rates, which have been consistently confirmed in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. Pharmacokinetic modeling suggests a lower potential for monoamine oxidase interaction, and animal and human subject testing has confirmed these predictions. Studies in special patient populations showed a consistent and predictable pharmacokinetic profile across age groups and comorbid conditions, without evidence of increased incidence of adverse effects over matched controls. The favorable safety profile makes tedizolid phosphate an important new option for the management of serious Gram-positive infections, including those caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Tedizolid phosphate for the management of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: efficacy summary.

The novel oxazolidinone tedizolid phosphate is in late-stage development for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). Preclinical and phase 1 trials have shown that 200-mg once-daily tedizolid phosphate dosing achieves the appropriate pharmacokinetic goals for optimal antimicrobial effect, and a randomized phase 2 dose-ranging trial confirmed that tedizolid phosphate may be an option for the treatment of ABSSSIs at the 200-mg dose, the lowest effective dose, over a mean of 6.4 days of therapy. In the first of two phase 3 trials, 6 days of 200-mg once-daily oral tedizolid phosphate (plus 4 days of placebo) was noninferior to 10 days of 600-mg twice-daily oral linezolid when evaluated at both the early (48- to 72-hour assessment) and test-of-cure (7-14 days after the last dose of active or placebo agent was given) time points. Initial results from the second phase 3 trial (intravenous to oral therapy design) confirm the study met all primary and secondary endpoints and continues to add insight into the clinical utility of tedizolid phosphate.

Platelet profile in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections receiving tedizolid or linezolid: findings from the Phase 3 ESTABLISH clinical trials.

Tedizolid, the active moiety of tedizolid phosphate, is a recently approved oxazolidinone antibacterial with activity against a wide range of Gram-positive pathogens, including resistant strains such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. To date, 6 days of 200 mg tedizolid once daily has been shown to be noninferior to 10 days of 600 mg linezolid twice daily in two randomized, double-blind phase 3 trials (ESTABLISH-1 and ESTABLISH-2) for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). The intent of this study was to characterize the platelet profiles of patients receiving tedizolid relative to linezolid over the course of treatment using pooled data from these two trials. The occurrences of clinically defined and statistical analysis plan-specified reduced platelet counts were assessed at the study days 7 to 9 visit, the study days 11 to 13 visit, and the posttherapy evaluation (PTE) visit. At the study days 7 to 9 visit, incidences of reduced platelet counts were low and largely similar between the groups. The only notable difference was a lower incidence of thrombocytopenia (platelet counts, <150,000 cells/mm(3)) among patients who received tedizolid (3.2%) relative to those who received linezolid (5.6%). At the study days 11 to 13 visit, patients who received tedizolid had lower incidences of platelet counts of <150,000 cells/mm(3) (-5.9%), <112,500 cells/mm(3) (-2.4%), and <100,000 cells/mm(3) (-1.9%) than patients in the linezolid group. Similar differences were noted at the PTE visit. Findings across the two phase 3 ABSSSI trials suggest that 6 days of 200 mg tedizolid daily confers a low potential for reduced platelet counts among patients with ABSSSIs. (The ESTABLISH-1 and ESTABLISH-2 trials have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration numbers NCT01170221 and NCT01421511, respectively.).

Absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of the novel antibacterial prodrug tedizolid phosphate.

Tedizolid phosphate is a novel antibacterial prodrug with potent activity against Gram-positive pathogens. In vitro and in vivo studies demonstrated that the prodrug is rapidly converted by nonspecific phosphatases to the biologically active moiety tedizolid. Single oral dose radiolabeled (14)C-tedizolid phosphate kinetic studies in human subjects (100 µCi in 204 mg tedizolid phosphate free acid) confirmed a rapid time to maximum tedizolid concentration (Tmax, 1.28 hours), a long terminal half-life (10.6 hours), and a Cmax of 1.99 µg/ml. Metabolite analysis of plasma, fecal, and urine samples from rats, dogs, and humans confirmed that tedizolid is the only measurable metabolite in plasma after intravenous (in animals only) or oral administration and that tedizolid sulfate is the major metabolite excreted from the body. Excellent mass balance recovery was achieved and demonstrated that fecal excretion is the predominant (80-90%) route of elimination across species, primarily as tedizolid sulfate. Urine excretion accounted for the balance of drug elimination but contained a broader range of minor metabolites. Glucuronidation products were not detected. Similar results were observed in rats and dogs after both intravenous and oral administration. The tedizolid metabolites showed less potent antibacterial activity than tedizolid. The observations from these studies support once daily dosing of tedizolid phosphate and highlight important metabolism and excretion features that differentiate tedizolid phosphate from linezolid.

Tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the ESTABLISH-1 randomized trial.

IMPORTANCE: Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs), including cellulitis or erysipelas, major cutaneous abscesses, and wound infections, can be life-threatening and may require surgery and hospitalization. Increasingly, ABSSSIs are associated with drug-resistant pathogens, and many antimicrobial agents have adverse effects restricting their use. Tedizolid phosphate is a novel oxazolidinone in development for the treatment of ABSSSIs. OBJECTIVES: To establish the noninferiority of tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid in treating ABSSSIs and compare the safety of the 2 agents. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The Efficacy and Safety of 6-day Oral Tedizolid in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections vs 10-day Oral Linezolid Therapy (ESTABLISH-1) was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial that was conducted from August 2010 through September 2011 at 81 study centers in North America, Latin America, and Europe. The intent-to-treat analysis set consisted of data from 667 adults aged 18 years or older with ABSSSIs treated with tedizolid phosphate (n = 332) or linezolid (n = 335). INTERVENTIONS: A 200 mg once daily dose of oral tedizolid phosphate for 6 days or 600 mg of oral linezolid every 12 hours for 10 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcome was early clinical response at the 48- to 72-hour assessment (no increase in lesion surface area from baseline and oral temperature of ≤37.6°C, confirmed by a second temperature measurement within 24 hours). A 10% noninferiority margin was predefined. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat analysis set, the early clinical treatment response rates were 79.5% (95% CI, 74.8% to 83.7%) of 332 patients in the tedizolid phosphate group and 79.4% (95% CI, 74.7% to 83.6%) of 335 patients in the linezolid group (a treatment difference of 0.1% [95% CI, -6.1% to 6.2%]). The sustained clinical treatment response rates at the end of treatment (day 11) were 69.3% (95% CI, 64.0% to 74.2%) in the tedizolid phosphate group and 71.9% (95% CI, 66.8% to 76.7%) in the linezolid group (a treatment difference of -2.6% [95% CI, -9.6% to 4.2%]). Results of investigator-assessed clinical treatment success rates at a posttherapy evaluation visit (1-2 weeks after the end-of-treatment visit) were 85.5% (95% CI, 81.3% to 89.1%) in the tedizolid phosphate group and 86.0% (95% CI, 81.8% to 89.5%) in the linezolid group (a treatment difference of -0.5% [95% CI, -5.8% to 4.9%), and were similar for 178 patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from the primary lesion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Tedizolid phosphate was a statistically noninferior treatment to linezolid in early clinical response at 48 to 72 hours after initiating therapy for an ABSSSI. Tedizolid phosphate may be a reasonable alternative to linezolid for treating ABSSSI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01170221.

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.

Tedizolid (TR-700, formerly torezolid) is the active moiety of the prodrug tedizolid phosphate (TR-701), a next-generation oxazolidinone, with high potency against Gram-positive species, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). A recently completed randomized, double-blind phase 2 trial evaluated 200, 300, or 400 mg of oral tedizolid phosphate once daily for 5 to 7 days in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. This report examines the in vitro activity of tedizolid and Zyvox (linezolid) against Gram-positive pathogens isolated at baseline and describes the microbiological and clinical efficacy of tedizolid. Of 196 isolates tested, 81.6% were S. aureus, and of these, 76% were MRSA. The MIC(50) and MIC(90) of tedizolid against both methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) and MRSA were 0.25 µg/ml, compared with a MIC(50) of 1 µg/ml and MIC(90) of 2 µg/ml for linezolid. For coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 7), viridans group streptococci (n = 15), and beta-hemolytic streptococci (n = 3), the MICs ranged from 0.03 to 0.25 µg/ml for tedizolid and from 0.12 to 1 µg/ml for linezolid. The microbiological eradication rates at the test-of-cure visit (7 to 14 days posttreatment) in the microbiologically evaluable population (n = 133) were similar in all treatment groups, with overall eradication rates of 97.7% for all pathogens, 97.9% for MRSA, and 95.7% for MSSA. The clinical cure rates for MRSA and MSSA infections were 96.9% and 95.7%, respectively, across all dose groups. This study confirms the potent in vitro activity of tedizolid against pathogenic Gram-positive cocci, including MRSA, and its 4-fold-greater potency in comparison with linezolid. All dosages of tedizolid phosphate showed excellent microbiological and clinical efficacy against MRSA and MSSA.

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.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous infusion of doripenem versus imipenem in ventilator-associated pneumonia: a multicenter, randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: Doripenem is an investigational carbapenem with broad-spectrum activity against gram-negative and gram-positive pathogens, including multidrug-resistant strains, commonly responsible for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). This large, phase III study compared doripenem with imipenem for the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, parallel randomized, active-controlled, open-label study. SETTING: Intensive care units. PATIENTS: Adults (N = 531) who met clinical and radiologic criteria for ventilator-associated pneumonia. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were stratified by duration of mechanical ventilation (< 5 vs. > or = 5 days), severity of illness (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score < or = 15 vs. > 15), and geographic region and then randomly assigned to doripenem 500 mg every 8 hrs via a 4-hr intravenous infusion or imipenem 500 mg every 6 hrs or 1000 mg every 8 hrs via 30- or 60-min intravenous infusions, respectively, for 7-14 days. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary efficacy end points were the clinical cure rates in the clinical modified intent-to-treat (cMITT) and clinically evaluable populations. Doripenem was noninferior to imipenem (lower boundary of 95% confidence interval around the difference between treatments > or = -20%). Clinical cure rates were 68.3% (doripenem) and 64.2% (imipenem) in the clinically evaluable and 59.0% (doripenem) and 57.8% (imipenem) in the cMITT populations. In patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, clinical cure was 80.0% (doripenem) and 42.9% (imipenem) (p not significant); microbiological cure was 65.0% (doripenem) and 37.5% (imipenem). Only 18% (5 of 28) of P. aeruginosa isolates had minimum inhibitory concentration > or = 8 microg/mL at baseline or following therapy in the doripenem arm compared with 64% (16 of 25) in the imipenem treatment group (p = .001). Clinical cure rate was higher with doripenem than imipenem at higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores and older ages. Doripenem was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, phase III study of patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia, a 4-hr intravenous infusion of doripenem was clinically efficacious and therapeutically noninferior to imipenem.

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.

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.

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.