Results of the Surveillance of Tedizolid Activity and Resistance Program: in vitro susceptibility of Gram-positive pathogens collected in 2011 and 2012 from the United States and Europe

Sahm, Daniel F.; Deane, Jennifer; Bien, Paul; Locke, Jeffrey B.; Zuill, Douglas E.; Shaw, Karen Joy; Bartizal, Ken

doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2014.08.011

Cited by 70 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this survey confirm the excellent activities and spectra of both tedizolid and linezolid against wild-type (WT) strains of the target Gram-positive pathogens (5,8,10). Our findings agree with those of Zurenko et al (5), who observed no evidence of a linezolid-susceptible and tedizolid-resistant phenotype among 7,187 isolates of S. aureus, 1,600 isolates of Streptococcus spp., and 91 isolates of the S. anginosus group.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…These finding are very similar to those published earlier by Sahm et al (8) and Zurenko et al (5). In contrast, the tedizolid MIC values obtained in the present survey by BMD against all S. anginosus group isolates, as well as those from Taiwan, were 4-to 8-fold lower than those recently reported by Chen et al (9), who employed an agar dilution method.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 52%

“…Surprisingly, the Taiwanese isolates of the S. anginosus group were uniformly susceptible to linezolid despite only 38.7% susceptibility to tedizolid (9). Notably, a linezolid-susceptible and tedizolid-resistant phenotype had not been reported in previous in vitro surveillance surveys (1,2,5,8,10).The study of Chen et al (9) differed from previous studies of tedizolid in the use of an agar dilution method rather than the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) reference broth microdilution (BMD) method (11) to determine the susceptibility of tested isolates to tedizolid and linezolid. Furthermore, Chen et al (9) did not provide methodological details concerning the inoculum concentration, the duration of incubation, or the criteria used for MIC endpoint determination.…”

contrasting

confidence: 45%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas the vast majority of in vitro studies of tedizolid confirm the activity and spectrum of the agent against pathogens associated with ABSSSI (2,5,7,8), a recent study from Taiwan has raised concern about increased resistance to tedizolid among isolates of the Streptococcus anginosus group (including S. anginosus, Streptococcus intermedius, and Streptococcus constellatus) collected from January 2013 to October 2014 (9). Surprisingly, the Taiwanese isolates of the S. anginosus group were uniformly susceptible to linezolid despite only 38.7% susceptibility to tedizolid (9).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Activities of Tedizolid and Linezolid Determined by the Reference Broth Microdilution Method against 3,032 Gram-Positive Bacterial Isolates Collected in Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, and Latin American Countries in 2014

Pfaller

Flamm

Jones

et al. 2016

Antimicrob Agents Chemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

bTedizolid and linezolid in vitro activities against 3,032 Gram-positive pathogens collected in Asia-Pacific, Eastern European, and Latin American medical centers during 2014 were assessed. The isolates were tested for susceptibility by the current reference broth microdilution methods. Due to concern over the effect of MIC endpoint criteria on the results of testing the oxazolidinones tedizolid and linezolid, MIC endpoint values were read by two methods: (i) reading the MIC at the first well where the trailing began without regard for pinpoint trailing, according to CLSI M07-A10 and M100-S26 document instructions for reading linezolid (i.e., 80% inhibition of growth; these reads were designated tedizolid 80 and linezolid 80), and (ii) at 100% inhibition of growth (designated tedizolid 100 and linezolid 100). All Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus anginosus group, and Enterococcus faecalis isolates were inhibited at tedizolid 80 and 100 MIC values of 0.25 and 0.5, 0.25 and 0.25, 0.25 and 0.5, 0.12 and 0.25, and 0.5 and 1 g/ml, respectively. Generally, MIC 50 and MIC 90 results for tedizolid 80 and linezolid 80 were one doubling dilution lower than those read at 100% inhibition. Tedizolid was 4-to 8-fold more potent than linezolid against all the isolates tested regardless of the MIC endpoint criterion used. Despite the differences in potency, >99.9% of isolates tested in this survey were susceptible to both linezolid and tedizolid using CLSI and EUCAST interpretive criteria. In conclusion, tedizolid demonstrated greater in vitro potency than linezolid against Gram-positive pathogens isolated from patients in medical centers across the Asia-Pacific region, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. Tedizolid is an oxazolidinone derivative that exhibits greater potency and a broader spectrum than linezolid when tested against a broad array of Gram-positive cocci, including those with drug-resistant phenotypes, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and linezolid-resistant phenotypes (1, 2). Tedizolid was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014 for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) and is undergoing phase III clinical trials for the treatment of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilated nosocomial pneumonia (VNP) (2).Numerous in vitro surveys have demonstrated that tedizolid is 4-to 8-fold more potent than linezolid against species of staphylococci, enterococci, and streptococci, including those with multidrug-resistant (MDR) phenotypes, such as MRSA, VRE, and linezolid-resistant S. aureus and enterococci (3-5). Structural modifications in the molecule result in enhanced binding to the 23S rRNA target and provide enhanced activity of tedizolid compared to that of linezolid; furthermore, tedizolid potency is not affected by strains harboring the transmissible cfr resistance gene (1,2,6).Whereas the vast majority of in vitro st...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 52%

contrasting

confidence: 45%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Activities of Tedizolid and Linezolid Determined by the Reference Broth Microdilution Method against 3,032 Gram-Positive Bacterial Isolates Collected in Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, and Latin American Countries in 2014

Pfaller

Flamm

Jones

et al. 2016

Antimicrob Agents Chemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Role of Combination Antimicrobial Therapy for Vancomycin‐Resistant Enterococcus faecium Infections: Review of the Current Evidence

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enterococcus species are the second most common cause of nosocomial infections in the United States and are particularly concerning in critically ill patients with preexisting comorbid conditions. Rising resistance to antimicrobials that were historically used as front-line agents for treatment of enterococcal infections, such as ampicillin, vancomycin, and aminoglycosides, further complicates the treatment of these infections. Of particular concern are Enterococcus faecium strains that are associated with the highest rate of vancomycin resistance. The introduction of antimicrobial agents with specific activity against vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) faecium including daptomycin, linezolid, quinupristin-dalfopristin, and tigecycline did not completely resolve this clinical dilemma. In this review, the mechanisms of action and resistance to currently available anti-VRE antimicrobial agents including newer agents such as oritavancin and dalbavancin will be presented. In addition, novel combination therapies including b-lactams and fosfomycin, and the promising results from in vitro, animal studies, and clinical experience in the treatment of VRE faecium will be discussed.

show abstract

Daptomycin Resistance

Smith¹,

Claeys²,

Zasowski³

et al. 2017

Antimicrobial Drug Resistance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results of the Surveillance of Tedizolid Activity and Resistance Program: in vitro susceptibility of Gram-positive pathogens collected in 2011 and 2012 from the United States and Europe

Cited by 70 publications

References 34 publications

Activities of Tedizolid and Linezolid Determined by the Reference Broth Microdilution Method against 3,032 Gram-Positive Bacterial Isolates Collected in Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, and Latin American Countries in 2014

Activities of Tedizolid and Linezolid Determined by the Reference Broth Microdilution Method against 3,032 Gram-Positive Bacterial Isolates Collected in Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, and Latin American Countries in 2014

Role of Combination Antimicrobial Therapy for Vancomycin‐Resistant Enterococcus faecium Infections: Review of the Current Evidence

Daptomycin Resistance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About