Drugs

, Volume 75, Issue 3, pp 253–270 | Cite as

Tedizolid: A Novel Oxazolidinone with Potent Activity Against Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Positive Pathogens

  • George G. Zhanel
  • Riley Love
  • Heather Adam
  • Alyssa Golden
  • Sheryl Zelenitsky
  • Frank Schweizer
  • Bala Gorityala
  • Philippe R. S. Lagacé-Wiens
  • Ethan Rubinstein
  • Andrew Walkty
  • Alfred S. Gin
  • Matthew Gilmour
  • Daryl J. Hoban
  • Joseph P. Lynch3rd
  • James A. Karlowsky
Review Article

Abstract

Tedizolid phosphate is a novel oxazolidinone prodrug (converted to the active form tedizolid by phosphatases in vivo) that has been developed and recently approved (June 2014) by the United States FDA for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) caused by susceptible Gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Tedizolid is an oxazolidinone, but differs from other oxazolidinones by possessing a modified side chain at the C-5 position of the oxazolidinone nucleus which confers activity against certain linezolid-resistant pathogens and has an optimized C- and D-ring system that improves potency through additional binding site interactions. The mechanism of action of tedizolid is similar to other oxazolidinones and occurs through inhibition of bacterial protein synthesis by binding to 23S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) of the 50S subunit of the ribosome. As with other oxazolidinones, the spontaneous frequency of resistance development to tedizolid is low. Tedizolid is four- to eightfold more potent in vivo than linezolid against all species of staphylococci, enterococci, and streptococci, including drug-resistant phenotypes such as MRSA and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and linezolid-resistant phenotypes. Importantly, tedizolid demonstrates activity against linezolid-resistant bacterial strains harboring the horizontally transmissible cfr gene, in the absence of certain ribosomal mutations conferring reduced oxazolidinone susceptibility. With its half-life of approximately 12 h, tedizolid is dosed once daily. It demonstrates linear pharmacokinetics, has a high oral bioavailability of approximately 90 %, and is primarily excreted by the liver as an inactive, non-circulating sulphate conjugate. Tedizolid does not require dosage adjustment in patients with any degree of renal dysfunction or hepatic dysfunction. Studies in animals have demonstrated that the pharmacodynamic parameter most closely associated with the efficacy of tedizolid is fAUC0–24h/MIC. In non-neutropenic animals, a dose-response enhancement was observed with tedizolid and lower exposures were required compared to neutropenic cohorts. Two Phase III clinical trials have demonstrated non-inferiority of a once-daily tedizolid 200 mg dose for 6–10 days versus twice-daily 600 mg linezolid for the treatment of ABSSSIs. Both trials used the primary endpoint of early clinical response at 48–72 h; however, one trial compared oral formulations while the other initiated therapy with the parenteral formulation and allowed oral sequential therapy following initial clinical response. Throughout its development, tedizolid has demonstrated that it is well tolerated and animal studies have shown a lower propensity for neuropathies with long-term use than its predecessor linezolid. Data from the two completed Phase III clinical trials demonstrated that the studied tedizolid regimen (200 mg once daily for 6 days) had significantly less impact on hematologic parameters as well as significantly less gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAEs) than its comparator linezolid. As with linezolid, tedizolid is a weak, reversible MAO inhibitor; however, a murine head twitch model validated to assess serotonergic activity reported no increase in the number of head twitches with tedizolid even at doses that exceeded the C max in humans by up to 25-fold. Tyramine and pseudoephedrine challenge studies in humans have also reported no meaningful MAO-related interactions with tedizolid. With its enhanced in vitro activity against a broad-spectrum of Gram-positive aerobic bacteria, convenient once-daily dosing, a short 6-day course of therapy, availability of both oral and intravenous routes of administration, and an adverse effect profile that appears to be more favorable than linezolid, tedizolid is an attractive agent for use in both the hospital and community settings. Tedizolid is currently undergoing additional Phase III clinical trials for the treatment of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilated nosocomial pneumonia (VNP).

Keywords

Linezolid Epithelial Line Fluid Oxazolidinone Linezolid Resistance Early Clinical Response 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for their assistance with literature retrieval.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Zhanel has received research grants from Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Drs Love, Adam, Golden, Zelenitsky, Schweizer, Gorityala, Lagace-Weins, Rubinstein, Gin, Walkty, Gilmour, Hoban, Lynch, and Karlowsky have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Moellering RC Jr. MRSA: the first half century. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(1):4–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moellering RC Jr. Tedizolid: a novel oxazolidinone for Gram-positive infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(Suppl 1):S1–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stryjewski ME, Corey GR. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an evolving pathogen. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(Suppl 1):S10–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rybak JM, Barber KE, Rybak MJ. Current and prospective treatments for multidrug-resistant gram-positive infections. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2013;14(14):1919–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rodvold KA, McConeghy KW. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus therapy: past, present, and future. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(Suppl 1):S20–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herrmann DJ, Peppard WJ, Ledeboer NA, et al. Linezolid for the treatment of drug-resistant infections. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2008;6(6):825–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burke SL, Rose WE. New pharmacological treatments for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2014;15(4):483–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kisgen JJ, Mansour H, Unger NR, et al. Tedizolid: a new oxazolidinone antimicrobial. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2014;71(8):621–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kanafani ZA, Corey GR. Tedizolid (TR-701): a new oxazolidinone with enhanced potency. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2012;21(4):515–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shen K, Yoshikawa K, Tanaka T, et al. Pharmacokinetic profile of tedizolid phosphate, an antibiotic prodrug, in healthy Japanese adults [abstract no. PS925 plus poster]. In: 43rd Society of Critical Care Medicine Critical Care Congress: San Francisco; 2014.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tanaka T, Hayashi Y, Okumura K, et al. Pharmacokinetics of 7-day multiple-dose tedizolid phosphate in healthy Japanese subjects in a phase 1 placebo-controlled study [abstract no. P1723 plus poster]. In: 24th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: Barcelona; 2014.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Locke JB, Finn J, Hilgers M, et al. Structure-activity relationships of diverse oxazolidinones for linezolid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains possessing the cfr methyltransferase gene or ribosomal mutations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(12):5337–43.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barbachyn MR, Ford CW. Oxazolidinone structure-activity relationships leading to linezolid. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2003;42(18):2010–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Michalska K, Karpiuk I, Krol M, et al. Recent development of potent analogues of oxazolidinone antibacterial agents. Bioorg Med Chem. 2013;21(3):577–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Locke J, Finn J, Hilgers M, et al. Structure-activity relationships of diverse oxazolidinones for linezolid-resistant S. aureus strains possessing the cfr methyl transferase gene or ribsomal mutations [abstract no. C1-1432 plus poster]. In: 50th Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: Boston; 2010.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shaw KJ, Barbachyn MR. The oxazolidinones: past, present, and future. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011;1241:48–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leach KL, Swaney SM, Colca JR, et al. The site of action of oxazolidinone antibiotics in living bacteria and in human mitochondria. Mol Cell. 2007;26(3):393–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shaw KJ, Poppe S, Schaadt R, et al. In vitro activity of TR-700, the antibacterial moiety of the prodrug TR-701, against linezolid-resistant strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(12):4442–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Locke J, Zuill D, Scharn CR, et al. Identification and characterization of linezolid-resistant USA300 Staphylococcus aureus isolates collected from a New York city medical center possessing the cfr multidrug resistant gene. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014;58(11):6949–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Locke JB, Zurenko GE, Shaw KJ, et al. Tedizolid for the management of human infections: in vitro characteristics. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(Suppl 1):S35–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mendes RE, Deshpande LM, Jones RN. Linezolid update: stable in vitro activity following more than a decade of clinical use and summary of associated resistance mechanisms. Drug Resist Update. 2014;17(1–2):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baos E, Candel FJ, Merino P, et al. Characterization and monitoring of linezolid-resistant clinical isolates of Staphylococcus epidermidis in an intensive care unit 4 years after an outbreak of infection by cfr-mediated linezolid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Diag Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013;76(3):325–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cercenado E, Marin M, Gama B, et al. In vitro activity of tedizolid and radezolid against linezolid-resistant Gram-positive clinical isolates with genetically characterized resistance mechanisms [abstract no. C2-142 plus poster]. In: 52nd Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: San Francisco; 2012.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Locke JB, Morales G, Hilgers M, et al. Elevated linezolid resistance in clinical cfr-positive Staphylococcus aureus isolates is associated with co-occurring mutations in ribosomal protein L3. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(12):5352–5.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Locke JB, Hilgers M, Shaw KJ. Novel ribosomal mutations in Staphylococcus aureus strains identified through selection with the oxazolidinones linezolid and torezolid (TR-700). Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(12):5265–74.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yum JH, Choi SH, Yong D, et al. Comparative in vitro activities of torezolid (DA-7157) against clinical isolates of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria in South Korea. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(12):5381–6.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prokocimer P, Bien P, Deanda C, et al. 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;56(9):4608–13.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Betriu C, Morales G, Rodriguez-Avial I, et al. Comparative activities of TR-700 (torezolid) against staphylococcal blood isolates collected in Spain. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(5):2212–5.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brown SD, Traczewski MM. Comparative in vitro antimicrobial activities of torezolid (TR-700), the active moiety of a new oxazolidinone, torezolid phosphate (TR-701), determination of tentative disk diffusion interpretive criteria, and quality control ranges. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(5):2063–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schaadt R, Sweeney D, Shinabarger D, et al. In vitro activity of TR-700, the active ingredient of the antibacterial prodrug TR-701, a novel oxazolidinone antibacterial agent. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(8):3236–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhanel GG, Calic D, Schweizer F, et al. New lipoglycopeptides: a comparative review of dalbavancin, oritavancin and telavancin. Drugs. 2010;70(7):859–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deane J, Simenauer A, Shaw K, et al. In vitro activity profile of tedizolid (TZD) and correlation with linezolid (LZD) activity against recent staphylococcal isolates [abstract no. E-1479 plus poster]. In: 52nd Annual Interscience Conference on Anitmicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: San Francisco; 2012.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Deane J, Opiela C, Shah D, et al. Activity of tedizolid (TZD) and linezolid (LZD) against key bacterial pathogens associated with respiratory, skin/wound infections, and bacteremia [abstract no. C2-090 plus poster]. In: 53rd Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: Denver; 2013.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bien P, Locke J, Zuill D, et al. Longitudinal comparison of the in vitro activities of tedizolid and linezolid against Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates from Europe (2009–2013) [abstract no. P1674 plus poster]. In: 24th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: Barcelona; 2014.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Deane J, Simenauer A, Shaw K, et al. Comparison of tedizolid (TZD) in vitro activity with that of other key Gram-postive agents against recent enterococcal and streptococcal isolates [abstract no. E-778 plus poster]. In: 52nd Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: San Francisco; 2012.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Golden A, Baxter M, Nichol K, et al. In vitro activity of tedizolid against Canadian clinical Gram-postive pathogens, including hVISA and the CDC NARSA strains [abstract no. E-143 plus poster]. In: 53rd Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: Denver; 2013.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chen H, Yang Q, Zhang R, et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of the novel oxazolidinone tedizolid and comparators agents against Staphylococcus aureus and linezolid-resistant Gram-positive cocci pathogens: a multicenter study in China. Intern J Antimicrob Agents. 2014;44(3):276–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Urbina O, Ferrandez O, Espona M, et al. Potential role of tedizolid phosphate in the treatment of acute bacterial skin infections. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2013;7:243–65.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hong S, Choi S, Lim W, et al. In vitro activity of tedizolid against gram-positive cocci isolated from skin and soft tissue infections in Korea: a multicenter study [abstract no. F-1604]. In: 54th Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC): Washington, DC; 2014.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Barber KE, McRoberts JP, Raut A, et al. Evaluation of tedizolid against multi-drug resistant Staphylococcus aureus and enterococci [abstract no. F-1606]. In: 54th Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC): Washington, DC; 2014.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kozlov R, Sukhorukova M, Edelstein M, et al. Tedizolid comparative in vitro activity against Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated in Russia. [abstract no. F-1605]. In: 54th Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC): Washington, DC; 2014.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lee Y, Hong S, Choi S, et al. In vitro activity of tedizolid against gram-positive bacteria associated with nosocomial pneumonia in Korea: a multicenter study [abstract no. F-1619]. In: 54th Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC): Washington, DC; 2014.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bien PA, Bensaci M, Prokocimer P. Results of the surveillance of tedizolid activity and resistance (STAR) program: in vitro susceptibility of gram-positive pathogens collected in 2009 to 2012 from the United States and Europe [abstract no. C-829]. In: 54th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC): Washington, DC: 2014.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Golden AR, Adam HJ, Baxter M, et al. Activity of tedizolid against gram-positive cocci from Canadian hospitals: CANWARD 2013 and 2014 [abstract no. F-1603]. In: 54th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC): Washington, DC; 2014.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hackel M, Lynch T, Alder J, et al. In vitro activity of tedizolid and key comparators against Staphylococcus aureus isolated from Latin America, Eastern Europe, and the Pacific Rim: 2013 [abstract no. C-828]. In: 54th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC: Washington, DC; 2014.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Barber KE, McRoberts JP, Raut A, et al. Evaluation of tedizolid against multi-drug resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from Latin America, Eastern Europe, and the Pacific Rim: 2013 [abstract no. C-828]. In: 54th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC): Washington, DC; 2014.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sanchez Garcia M, De la Torre MA, Morales G, et al. Clinical outbreak of linezolid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an intensive care unit. JAMA. 2010;303(22):2260–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Livermore DM, Mushtaq S, Warner M, et al. Activity of oxazolidinone TR-700 against linezolid-susceptible and -resistant staphylococci and enterococci. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009;63(4):713–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jones RN, Moet GJ, Sader HS, et al. TR-700 in vitro activity against and resistance mutation frequencies among Gram-positive pathogens. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009;63(4):716–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rodriguez-Avial I, Culebras E, Betriu C, et al. In vitro activity of tedizolid (TR-700) against linezolid-resistant staphylococci. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(1):167–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vera-Cabrera L, Gonzalez E, Rendon A, et al. In vitro activities of DA-7157 and DA-7218 against Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Nocardia brasiliensis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50(9):3170–2.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Molina-Torres CA, Barba-Marines A, Valles-Guerra O, et al. Intracellular activity of tedizolid phosphate and ACH-702 versus Mycobacterium tuberculosis infected macrophages. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2014;13. (13-0711-13-13).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Flanagan SD, Bien PA, Munoz KA, et al. Pharmacokinetics of tedizolid following oral administration: single and multiple dose, effect of food, and comparison of two solid forms of the prodrug. Pharmacotherapy. 2014;34(3):240–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Dreskin H, Munoz K, Fang E, et al. Safety and pharmacokinetics of single oral administration of tedizolid phosphate in healthy elderly subjects and adult control subjects [abstract no. A-1293 plus poster]. In: 52nd Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: San Francisco; 2012.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Housman ST, Pope JS, Russomanno J, et al. Pulmonary disposition of tedizolid following administration of once-daily oral 200-milligram tedizolid phosphate in healthy adult volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(5):2627–34.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bien P, Prokocimer P, Munoz K, et al. Absolute bioavailability of TR-701 FA and pharmacokinetics after single and multiple dose intravenous administration in healthy adult subjects [abstract no. A1-013 plus poster]. In: 50th Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: Boston; 2010.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Flanagan S, Fang E, Munoz KA, et al. Single and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics and absolute bioavailability of tedizolid. Pharmacother. 2014;34(9):891–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tanaka T, Hayashi Y, Okumura K, et al. Oral bioavailability of tedizolid in healthy Japanese subjects in a phase 1 study [abstract no. P1718 plus poster]. In: 24th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: Barcelona; 2014.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Flanagan S, Passarell J, Lu Q, et al. Tedizolid population pharmacokinetics exposure response and target attainment. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014 [Aug 18 Epub].Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sahre M, Sabarinath S, Grant M, et al. Skin and soft tissue concentrations of tedizolid (formerly torezolid), a novel oxazolidinone, following a single oral dose in healthy volunteers. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012;40(1):51–4.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Dreskin H, Boyea T, Barker J, et al. The absorption, metabolism, and excretion of orally administered [14C]-TR-701 FA in healthy subjects [abstract no. A2-033 plus poster]. 51st Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 17–20 Sep 2011; Chicago.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ong V, Flanagan S, Fang E, et al. Absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of the novel antibacterial prodrug tedizolid phosphate. Drug Metab Dispos. 2014;42(8):1275–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Flanagan S, Minassian SL, Morris D, et al. Pharmacokinetics of tedizolid in subjects with renal of hepatic impairment. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014;58(11):6471–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Flanagan S, Fang E, Dreskin H, et al. Pharmacokinetics of tedizolid in adolescent and elderly subjects and subjects with renal or hepatic impairment [abstract no. 707 plus poster]. In: IDWeek 2013: a joint meeting of IDSA, SHEA, HIVMA, and PIDS: San Francisco; 2013.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Flanagan S, Boyea T, Dreskin H, et al. A phase 1 study of orally administered tedizolid phosphate in subjects with moderate or severe hepatic impairment [abstract no. A-1295 plus poster]. In: 52nd Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: San Francisco; 2012.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Flanagan S, Minassian S, Passarell J, et al. Tedizolid plasma pharmacokinetics are comparable in obese and nonobese patients and healthy subjects [abstract no. P1703 plus poster]. In: 24th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: Barcelona; 2014.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Dreskin H, Munoz K, Bradley J, et al. Safety and pharmacokinetics after single oral and IV administration of tedizolid phosphate in adolescent patients [abstract no. A-1292 plus poster]. In: 52nd Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: San Francisco; 2012.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bradley J, Arrieta A, Capparelli E, et al. A phase 1, open-label, multi-center, single-dose, pharmacokinetic, safety and tolerance study of oral tedizolid phosphate in 12 to 17 year old patients [abstract no. P-1420 plus poster]. In: 22nd European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: London; 2012.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Capparelli E, Flanagan S, Bradley J, et al. Population pharmacokinetics (PK) of oral and intravenously administered tedizolid phosphate in adolescent patients [abstract no. P1460 plus poster]. In: IDWeek 2012: a joint meeting of IDSA, SHEA, HIVMA, and PIDS: San Diego; 2012.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Flanagan S, Passarell J, Fiedler-Kelly J, et al. Tedizolid dose adjustments based on patient characteristics are not warranted [abstract no. A-691]. In: 54th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC): Washington, DC; 2014.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lodise TP, Drusano GL. Use of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic systems analyses to inform dose selection of tedizolid phosphate. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(Suppl 1):S28–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lepak AJ, Marchillo K, Pichereau S, et al. Comparative pharmacodynamics of the new oxazolidinone tedizolid phosphate and linezolid in a neutropenic murine Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(11):5916–22.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Louie A, Liu W, Kulawy R, et al. In vivo pharmacodynamics of torezolid phosphate (TR-701), a new oxazolidinone antibiotic, against methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains in a mouse thigh infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(7):3453–60.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Keel RA, Tessier PR, Crandon JL, et al. Comparative efficacies of human simulated exposures of tedizolid and linezolid against Staphylococcus aureus in the murine thigh infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(8):4403–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Drusano GL, Liu W, Kulawy R, et al. Impact of granulocytes on the antimicrobial effect of tedizolid in a mouse thigh infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(11):5300–5.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Cubist Pharmaceuticals. Sivextro prescribing information. 2014; http://sivextro.com/pdf/PrescribingInformation.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2014.
  77. 77.
    Choi S, Im W, Bartizal K. Activity of tedizolid phosphate (TR-701) in murine models of infection with penicillin-resistant and penicillin-sensitive Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(9):4713–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Tessier PR, Keel RA, Hagihara M, et al. Comparative in vivo efficacies of epithelial lining fluid exposures of tedizolid, linezolid, and vancomycin for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a mouse pneumonia model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(5):2342–6.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hosako H, Radovsky A, Draganov D, et al. Lack of neuropathy after long-term tedizolid phosphate administration in rats [abstract no. A-017b plus poster]. In: 53rd Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: Denver; 2013.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Prokocimer P, De Anda C, Fang E, et al. Tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the ESTABLISH-1 randomized trial. JAMA. 2013;309(6):559–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Deanda C, Fang E, Green S, et al. Comparison of investigator assessed and programmatic clinical outcomes of tedizolid phosphate vs. linezolid in a phase 3 study in patients with ABSSSI [abstract no. L1-1665 plus poster]. In: 52nd Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: San Francisco; 2012.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Moran GJ, Fang E, Corey GR, et al. Tedizolid for 6 days versus linezolid for 10 days for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ESTABLISH-2): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(8):696–705.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Itani KM, Shorr AF. FDA guidance for ABSSSI trials: implications for conducting and interpreting clinical trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(Suppl 1):S4–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Fang E, De Anda C, Das A, et al. Efficacy and safety results from the ESTABLISH-2 ABSSSI study comparing IV and oral tedizolid phosphate and linezolid [abstract no. LB 2964 plus poster]. In: 23rd European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: Berlin; 2013.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Barie P, Fang E, Minassian S, et al. Tedizolid versus linezolid in patients with wound infection or major abscess: pooled analysis of two phase 3 double-blind studies [abstract no. P-28 plus poster]. In: 34th Annual Meeting of the Surgical Infection Society: Baltimore; 2012.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    De Anda C, Fang E, Das A, et al. Integrated results from two phase 3 studies comparing tedizolid phosphate 6 days vs. linezolid 10 days in patients with ABSSSI [abstract no. L-203 plus poster]. In: 53rd Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: Denver; 2013.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Das D, Tulkens PM, Mehra P, et al. Tedizolid phosphate for the management of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: safety summary. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(Suppl 1):S51–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Fang E, Munoz K,Prokocimer P. Neurologic and ophthalmologic safety results with 10-day dosing of tedizolid phosphate [abstract no. 916 plus poster]. In: 43rd Society of Critical Care Medicine Critical Care Congress: San Francisco; 2014.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Fang E, Litwin J, Lewis W, et al. Effects of oral tedizolid phosphate on QTcF and other electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters [abstract no. P1648 plus poster]. In: 23rd European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: Berlin; 2013.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Fang E, De Anda C,Prokocimer P. Safety and tolerability of tedizolid phosphate, a novel oxazolidinone, versus linezolid in two phase 3 studies in skin/skin structure infections [abstract no. PS295 plus poster]. In: 18th Asian Pacific Society of Respirology Meeting: Yokohama; 2013.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Lodise TP, Fang E, Minassian SL, et al. Platelet profile in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections receiving tedizolid or linezolid: Findings from the phase 3 ESTABLISH clinical trials. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014;58(12):7198–204.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Pfizer. Zyvoxam: Product Monograph. 2013; http://www.pfizer.ca/en/our_products/products/monograph/143. Accessed 23 June 2014.
  93. 93.
    Flanagan S, Bartizal K, Minassian SL, et al. In vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies of tedizolid to assess the potential for peripheral or central monoamine oxidase interactions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(7):3060–6.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Flanagan S, Minassian S, Fang E, et al. Lack of MAO inhibition by tedizolid phosphate in clinical and nonclinical studies [abstract no. A-1295a plus poster]. In: 52nd Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: San Francisco; 2012.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Flanagan S, Minassian S, Munoz K, et al. Lack of pharmacokinetic drug interactions of tedizolid phosphate with pseudoephedrine in healthy subjects [abstract no. P 921 plus poster]. In: 23rd European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Disease: Berlin; 2013.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Zurenko G, Bien P, Bensaci M, et al. Use of linezolid susceptibility test results as a surrogate for the susceptibility of gram-positive pathogens to tedizolid a new oxazolidinone. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2014;13(1):46.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • George G. Zhanel
    • 1
    • 4
    • 6
  • Riley Love
    • 2
  • Heather Adam
    • 1
    • 6
  • Alyssa Golden
    • 1
  • Sheryl Zelenitsky
    • 2
  • Frank Schweizer
    • 1
    • 3
  • Bala Gorityala
    • 3
  • Philippe R. S. Lagacé-Wiens
    • 1
    • 7
  • Ethan Rubinstein
    • 1
    • 4
  • Andrew Walkty
    • 1
    • 4
  • Alfred S. Gin
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • Matthew Gilmour
    • 1
    • 6
  • Daryl J. Hoban
    • 1
    • 6
  • Joseph P. Lynch3rd
    • 8
  • James A. Karlowsky
    • 1
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  3. 3.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  4. 4.Department of MedicineHealth Sciences CentreWinnipegCanada
  5. 5.Department of PharmacyHealth Sciences CentreWinnipegCanada
  6. 6.Department of Clinical MicrobiologyHealth Sciences CentreWinnipegCanada
  7. 7.Department of Clinical MicrobiologySaint Boniface HospitalWinnipegCanada
  8. 8.Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy and Clinical ImmunologyThe David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations