» Articles » PMID: 31487837

Tedizolid Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2019 Sep 7
PMID 31487837
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of tedizolid, compared to linezolid, in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI). PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO (Elton B. Stephens Co.), Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline and Embase databases were accessed until 18 July 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of tedizolid with linezolid for adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The outcomes included the clinical response, microbiological response, and risk of adverse events (AEs). A total of four RCTs involving 2056 adult patients with ABSSSI were enrolled. The early clinical response rate was 79.6% and 80.5% for patients receiving tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. The pooled analysis showed that tedizolid had a non-inferior early clinical response rate to linezolid (odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.77-1.19, = 0%). The early response rate was similar between tedizolid and linezolid among patients with cellulitis/erysipelas (75.1% vs. 77.1%; OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.64-1.27, = 25%), major cutaneous abscess (85.1% vs. 86.8%; OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.42-2.03, = 37%) and wound infection (85.9% vs. 82.6%; OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.66-2.51, = 45%). For methicillin-resistant patients, tedizolid had a favorable microbiological response rate of 95.2% which was comparable to linezolid (94%) (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.49-2.90, = 0%). In addition to the similar risk of treatment-emergent AEs (a serious event, the discontinuation of the study drug due to AEs and mortality between tedizolid and linezolid), tedizolid was associated with a lower risk of nausea, vomiting and abnormal neutrophil count than linezolid. In conclusion, once-daily tedizolid (200 mg for six days) compared to linezolid (600 mg twice-daily for 10 days) was non-inferior in efficacy in the treatment of ABSSSI. Besides, tedizolid was generally as well tolerated as linezolid, and had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs and bone marrow suppression than linezolid.

Citing Articles

[Suspected serotonergic syndrome associated with tedizolid: a case report].

Gonzalez-Gomez A, Penaroya-Rodriguez A, Caro-Teller J, Garcia-Munoz C, Del Carmen Moreno-de la Santa M, Ferrari-Piquero J Rev Esp Quimioter. 2025; 38(2):126-128.

PMID: 39927584 PMC: 11894556. DOI: 10.37201/req/071.2024.


Antibiotic Resistance to Molecules Commonly Prescribed for the Treatment of Antibiotic-Resistant Gram-Positive Pathogens: What Is Relevant for the Clinician?.

Tebano G, Zaghi I, Baldasso F, Calgarini C, Capozzi R, Salvadori C Pathogens. 2024; 13(1).

PMID: 38276161 PMC: 10819222. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens13010088.


New Antibiotics for Infection: An Update from the World Association of Infectious Diseases and Immunological Disorders (WAidid) and the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA).

Esposito S, Blasi F, Curtis N, Kaplan S, Lazzarotto T, Meschiari M Antibiotics (Basel). 2023; 12(4).

PMID: 37107104 PMC: 10135047. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12040742.


Discovery of Antibacterial Contezolid Acefosamil: Innovative -Acyl Phosphoramidate Prodrug for IV and Oral Therapies.

Liu J, Wang W, Wang C, Zhang L, Zhang X, Liu S ACS Med Chem Lett. 2022; 13(7):1030-1035.

PMID: 35859881 PMC: 9290071. DOI: 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.2c00191.


Tedizolid: new data and experiences for clinical practice.

Salavert Lleti M, Garcia-Bustos V, Morata Ruiz L, Cabanero-Navalon M Rev Esp Quimioter. 2021; 34 Suppl 1:22-25.

PMID: 34598418 PMC: 8683013. DOI: 10.37201/req/s01.06.2021.


References
1.
Prokocimer P, Bien P, Surber J, Mehra P, DeAnda C, Bulitta J . Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging study evaluating the safety, tolerability, population pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of oral torezolid phosphate in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010; 55(2):583-92. PMC: 3028792. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00076-10. View

2.
Mikamo H, Takesue Y, Iwamoto Y, Tanigawa T, Kato M, Tanimura Y . Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of tedizolid versus linezolid in patients with skin and soft tissue infections in Japan - Results of a randomised, multicentre phase 3 study. J Infect Chemother. 2018; 24(6):434-442. DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2018.01.010. View

3.
Righi E, Carnelutti A, Bassetti M . Current role of oxazolidinones and lipoglycopeptides in skin and soft tissue infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2019; 32(2):123-129. DOI: 10.1097/QCO.0000000000000529. View

4.
Pfaller M, Sader H, Rhomberg P, Flamm R, Mendes R . Activity of Tedizolid in Comparison with Other Oral and Intravenous Agents Against a Collection of Community-Acquired Methicillin-Resistant (2014-2015) in the United States. Microb Drug Resist. 2019; 25(6):938-943. DOI: 10.1089/mdr.2018.0410. View

5.
Sandison T, De Anda C, Fang E, Das A, 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; 61(5). PMC: 5404528. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02687-16. View